Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Article 35.16
Reasons for Challenge for Cause

(a)

A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders the juror incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A challenge for cause may be made by either the state or the defense for any one of the following reasons:
1. That the juror is not a qualified voter in the state and county under the Constitution and laws of the state; provided, however, the failure to register to vote shall not be a disqualification;
2. That the juror has been convicted of misdemeanor theft or a felony;
3. That the juror is under indictment or other legal accusation for misdemeanor theft or a felony;
4. That the juror is insane;
5. That the juror has such defect in the organs of feeling or hearing, or such bodily or mental defect or disease as to render the juror unfit for jury service, or that the juror is legally blind and the court in its discretion is not satisfied that the juror is fit for jury service in that particular case;
6. That the juror is a witness in the case;
7. That the juror served on the grand jury which found the indictment;
8. That the juror served on a petit jury in a former trial of the same case;
9. That the juror has a bias or prejudice in favor of or against the defendant;
10. That from hearsay, or otherwise, there is established in the mind of the juror such a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant as would influence the juror in finding a verdict. To ascertain whether this cause of challenge exists, the juror shall first be asked whether, in the juror’s opinion, the conclusion so established will influence the juror’s verdict. If the juror answers in the affirmative, the juror shall be discharged without further interrogation by either party or the court. If the juror answers in the negative, the juror shall be further examined as to how the juror’s conclusion was formed, and the extent to which it will affect the juror’s action; and, if it appears to have been formed from reading newspaper accounts, communications, statements or reports or mere rumor or hearsay, and if the juror states that the juror feels able, notwithstanding such opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence, the court, if satisfied that the juror is impartial and will render such verdict, may, in its discretion, admit the juror as competent to serve in such case. If the court, in its discretion, is not satisfied that the juror is impartial, the juror shall be discharged;
11. That the juror cannot read or write.
No juror shall be impaneled when it appears that the juror is subject to the second, third or fourth grounds of challenge for cause set forth above, although both parties may consent. All other grounds for challenge may be waived by the party or parties in whose favor such grounds of challenge exist.
In this subsection “legally blind” shall mean having not more than 20/200 of visual acuity in the better eye with correcting lenses, or visual acuity greater than 20/200 but with a limitation in the field of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees.

(b)

A challenge for cause may be made by the State for any of the following reasons:
1. That the juror has conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of the punishment of death for crime, in a capital case, where the State is seeking the death penalty;
2. That he is related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity, as determined under Chapter 573 (Degrees of Relationship; Nepotism Prohibitions), Government Code, to the defendant; and
3. That he has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment.

(c)

A challenge for cause may be made by the defense for any of the following reasons:
1. That he is related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity, as determined under Chapter 573 (Degrees of Relationship; Nepotism Prohibitions), Government Code, to the person injured by the commission of the offense, or to any prosecutor in the case; and
2. That he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., p. 317, ch. 722, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1966. Amended by Acts 1969, 61st Leg., p. 1364, ch. 412, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1969; Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 475, ch. 202, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 3143, ch. 827, Sec. 8, eff. Aug. 31, 1981; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 619, ch. 134, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.
Subsecs. (b), (c) amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 561, Sec. 10, eff. Aug. 26, 1991; amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(27), eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 801 (S.B. 451), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2005.

Source: Article 35.16 — Reasons for Challenge for Cause, https://statutes.­capitol.­texas.­gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.­35.­htm#35.­16 (accessed Jun. 5, 2024).

Green check means up to date. Up to date

Accessed:
Jun. 5, 2024

Art. 35.16’s source at texas​.gov