Texas voir dire and jury selection — CCP Art. 35.16

Texas voir dire and jury selection is governed by Code of Criminal Procedure Article 35.16. The rule defines the State's required steps, the defendant's rights at this stage, and the consequences of noncompliance. Below: the statutory text, the standard of practice in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties, and what a defendant should know before this stage.

The controlling statute

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 35.16 lists the grounds for challenging prospective jurors for cause. Voir dire — the questioning of potential jurors — is the only chance to remove biased or unfair panelists. Causes for challenge include prior conviction, bias against the law, conscientious scruples against the punishment range, and incapacity. Peremptory challenges (10 in felony non-capital; 6 in misdemeanor; 15 in capital) under Art. 35.15 allow strikes without cause, subject to Batson protections against discriminatory use.

Classification & punishment range

Elements the State must prove

To convict on a Texas CCP Art. 35.16 charge, the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Court conducts general qualification of the venire under Art. 35.12
2. Each side questions the panel on attitudes, biases, and ability to follow the law
3. Challenges for cause under Art. 35.16(a)–(c) (e.g., bias, prejudice, prior conviction)
4. Peremptory strikes used under Art. 35.15 — 10 per side for felonies, 6 for misdemeanors, 15 for capital
5. Batson v. Kentucky bars race- or gender-based peremptories
6. Jury sworn under Art. 35.22

Defense strategies

L and L Law Group, PLLC develops the following defense strategies on every Voir Dire and Jury Selection case:

• Develop rehabilitation/disqualification questions to expose disqualifying bias under Art. 35.16
• Preserve error on denied challenges for cause by using a peremptory on the venireman, exhausting peremptories, and identifying an objectionable juror seated as a result
• Make Batson challenges to the State's peremptories where a prima facie case of discrimination exists
• Use commitment questions strategically — and avoid improper commitment questions that draw objection
• Build the record on punishment-range scruples (mandatory minimum, deferred adjudication, range of penalty)
• Investigate jurors via voir-dire questionnaires and social-media research before strikes

Enhancements & collateral consequences

Improper denial of a challenge for cause is reversible if (1) all peremptories were used, (2) the defendant requested additional strikes, (3) the request was denied, and (4) an objectionable juror was seated. Batson violations require a three-step burden-shifting analysis (prima facie, race-neutral reason, pretext). Capital voir dire follows Witherspoon/Witt — qualifying jurors on the death penalty is its own constitutional regime.