Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Submitted: December 5, 2019
Appeal from the 336th District Court Fannin County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR-19-26942
Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
K. Burgess Justice.
Fannin County jury found Willie Dee Price guilty of
aggravated sexual assault of Tammy, a child, and sentenced
him to life imprisonment. On appeal, Price argues that the trial
court erred in failing to excuse veniremembers who could not
consider the full range of punishment and in allowing the
State to admit extraneous-offense evidence.
that Price failed to preserve his first issue for our review.
We also find that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting the extraneous-offense evidence. As a
result, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Price Failed to Preserve His First Point of
argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his
challenges for cause to veniremembers who answered that they
could not consider the minimum punishment for "the worst
child sexual assault case [they could]
imagine." In total, veniremembers 15, 17, 18, 23,
27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 39, and 49 said that they could not
assess the minimum sentence for "the worst child sexual
assault case" they could "personally imagine."
While several of these veniremembers were struck for cause by
agreement, Price challenged the six remaining veniremembers
for cause because they could not consider the full range of
punishment in the "worst case" scenario. Price used
his peremptory challenges to strike those six jurors and
asked for additional peremptory strikes. In his first point
of error, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing
his challenges for cause.
[e]rror is preserved for review . . . only if appellant (1)
used all of his peremptory strikes, (2) asked for and was
refused additional peremptory strikes, and (3) was then
forced to take an identified objectionable juror whom
appellant would not otherwise have accepted had the trial
court granted his challenge for cause (or granted him
additional peremptory strikes so that he might strike the
Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58, 83 (Tex. Crim. App.
2016). Although Price established the first two requirements
of error preservation, he failed to establish the third.
Price requested additional peremptory strikes but only
indicated that he would use one strike on veniremember 49,
who was not seated on the jury. Because Price failed to
specifically identify any other veniremembers he wished to
strike, the record fails to show that Price was forced to
accept an objectional juror. As a result, error is not
overrule Price's first point of error.
The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Admitting
second point of error, Price argues that the trial court
erred in admitting extraneous-offense testimony from four
other witnesses who said Price sexually abused them when they
were children. We disagree.
Factual and Procedural Background
evidence at trial showed that Price sexually assaulted a
family member, Tammy, when she was a child. Tammy testified
that Price had "rubb[ed] his penis with [her]
vagina" several times when she was approximately four or
five years old and discussed other sexually abusive acts
committed by Price against her. Tammy kept Price's acts
secret until she made a delayed outcry ...