clear and specific challenge in Texas

2008In order to preserve error when the trial court denies a challenge for cause, a defendant must do the following: (1) assert a clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) use a peremptory strike on the complained-of veniremember; (3) exhaust his peremptory strikes; (4) request additional peremptory strikes; (5) identify an objectionable juror; and (6) claim that he would have struck the objectionable juror with a peremptory strike if he had one to use. -3- 04-08-00059-CR Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex. Crim.

2004Discussion The Court of Criminal Appeals recently held, “To preserve error with respect to a trial court’s denial of a challenge for cause, an appellant must: (1) assert a clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) use a peremptory strike on the complained-of veniremember ; (3) exhaust his peremptory strikes; (4) request additional peremptory strikes; (5) identify an objectionable juror; and (6) claim that he would have struck the objectionable juror with a peremptory strike if he had one to use.” Allen v. State , 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex. Crim.

2009To preserve error on his challenges for cause, Cardenas had to (1) assert a clear and specific challenge for cause, (2) use a peremptory challenge on the complained-of veniremember, (3) exhaust all of his peremptory challenges, (4) request and be denied additional peremptory challenges, and (5) be forced to accept an objectionable juror on the jury. 10 Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744 ; Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 105 (Tex. Crim.

2009Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (“To preserve error on allegedly erroneously denied challenges for cause, an appellant must [inter alia ] demonstrate that he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause”); Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 105 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“To preserve error for a trial court's denial of a valid challenge for cause, it must be demonstrated on the record that appellant asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause,” among other requirements). .

2026“To preserve error for a trial court’s erroneous denial of a challenge for cause, appellant must show that: (1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venire member; (3) his peremptory challenges were exhausted; (4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and (5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 807 (Tex. Crim.

2019To preserve error for a trial court’s erroneous denial of a challenge for cause, an appellant must show that: “(1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venire member; (3) his peremptory challenges were exhausted; (4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and (5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 807 (Tex. Crim.

2022Preservation of error when a challenge for cause is denied requires an appellant demonstrate on the record that: “1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; 2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson; 3) all his peremptory challenges were exhausted; 4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and 5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim.

2018“To preserve error on denied challenges for cause, an appellant must demonstrate on the record that: 1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; 2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson; 3) all his peremptory challenges were exhausted; 4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and 5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim.

2026To establish harm for an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause, the defendant must show on the record that “(1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of veniremember; (3) his peremptory challenges were exhausted; (4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and (5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Comeaux, 445 S.W.3d at 749 .

2025To establish harm for an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause, the defendant must show on the record that “(1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of [veniremember]; (3) his peremptory challenges were exhausted; (4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and (5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Comeaux v. State, 445 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Tex. Crim.

2025PRESERVATION OF ERROR “To preserve error on denied challenges for cause, an appellant must demonstrate on the record that: 1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; 2) he used a 2 The record does not reflect the challenged venire member’s first name. 2 peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson; 3) all his peremptory challenges were exhausted; 4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and 5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex. Crim.

2011To preserve error on denied defense challenges for cause, an appellant must demonstrate that he "asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause." Sells v. State , 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex. Cr.

2010To preserve error on denied challenges for cause, "an appellant must demonstrate that he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause, that he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson, that all of his peremptory challenges were exhausted, that his request for additional strikes was denied, and that an objectionable juror sat on the jury." Mathis v. State , 67 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex. Crim.

2010To preserve error on denied challenges for cause, “an appellant must demonstrate that he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause, that he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson, that all of his peremptory challenges were exhausted, that his request for additional strikes was denied, and that an objectionable juror sat on the jury.” Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex. Crim.

2003Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 581 (Tex.Crim.App.1989).

2003Harris v. State , 790 S.W.2d 568, 581 (Tex. Crim .

2011See Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d 397, 405 (Tex. Crim.

1993In Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d 397 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), the Court of Criminal Appeals set out the requirements for preserving error on a trial court’s allegedly erroneous denial of a challenge for cause: (1) the voir dire “of the individual venire-person” must be recorded and transcribed; (2) the appellant must assert “a clear and specific challenge for cause clearly articulating the grounds therefor;” (3) after the challenge for cause is denied by the trial court, appellant must use a peremptory strike on that juror; (4) all peremptory challenges must be exhausted; *926 (5) when all peremptor

2023The clear and specific standard requires “enough detail to show the factual basis for [a] claim” but it does not “categorically reject circumstantial evidence” or “impose a higher burden of proof than that required of the plaintiff at trial.” In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 591 .

2020The clear and specific standard “neither imposes a heightened evidentiary burden or categorically rejects the use of circumstantial evidence when determining the plaintiff’s prima-facie-case burden under the Act.” Andrews County, 463 S.W.3d at 867 ; see Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 591 (“In a defamation case that implicates [chapter 27], pleadings and evidence that establish[] the facts of when, where, and what was said, the defamatory nature of the statements, and how they damaged the plaintiff should be sufficient to resist a TCPA motion to dismiss.”).

2023Daniel v. State, 485 S.W.3d 24, 33 (Tex. Crim.

2019Daniel v. State, 485 S.W.3d 24, 33 (Tex. Crim.

2020The clear and specific standard “neither imposes a heightened evidentiary burden or categorically rejects the use of circumstantial evidence when determining the plaintiff’s prima-facie-case burden under the Act.” Andrews County, 463 S.W.3d at 867 ; see Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 591 (“In a defamation case that implicates [chapter 27], pleadings and evidence that establish[] the facts of when, where, and what was said, the defamatory nature of the statements, and how they damaged the plaintiff should be sufficient to resist a TCPA motion to dismiss.”).

2018See Hand v. Hughey, No. 02-15-00239-CV, 2016 WL 1470188 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort 3 Worth Apr. 14, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that the clear and specific standard “‘neither imposes a heightened evidentiary burden nor categorically rejects the use of circumstantial evidence when determining the plaintiff’s prima- facie-case burden under the Act’” (quoting Andrews Cty. v. Sierra Club, 463 S.W.3d 867, 867 (Tex. 2015))).

2018See id.; see also Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 300 (Tex. Crim.

2010See Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 300 (Tex. Crim.

2009See Newbury v. State, 135 S.W.3d 22, 31 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Martinez v. State, 763 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). .

2009App. 1996) (“To preserve error for a trial court's denial of a valid challenge for cause, it must be demonstrated on the record that appellant asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause,” among other requirements). 73 See Newbury v. State, 135 S.W.3d 22, 31 (Tex. Crim.

2004Appellant, therefore, failed to preserve any error on whether Fletcher was challengeable for cause. [1] See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 511 , 157 L.Ed.2d 378 (2003) (to preserve error on denied defense challenges for cause, defendant must demonstrate that he "asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause"); Mayo v. State, 4 S.W.3d 9, 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1999) (requirement that juror be county citizen is forfeited by failure to assert that as basis for challenge for cause); see also Johnson, 43 S.W.3d at 5 n. 6 (discussing past confusi

2004Appellant, therefore, failed to preserve any error on whether Fletcher was challengeable for cause. 1 See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 511 , 157 L.Ed.2d 378 (2003) (to preserve error on denied defense challenges for cause, defendant must demonstrate that he “asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause”); Mayo v. State, 4 S.W.3d 9, 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1999) (requirement that juror be county citizen is forfeited by failure to assert that as basis for challenge for cause); see also Johnson, 43 S.W.3d at 5 n. 6 (discussing past confusion of “

2014Howes v. State, 120 S.W.3d 903, 908 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. ref’d) (citing Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex. Crim.

2009Howes , 120 S.W.3d at 908 (citing Allen v. State , 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex. Crim.

2004Appellant, therefore, failed to preserve any error on whether Fletcher was challengeable for cause. [1] See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 511 , 157 L.Ed.2d 378 (2003) (to preserve error on denied defense challenges for cause, defendant must demonstrate that he "asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause"); Mayo v. State, 4 S.W.3d 9, 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1999) (requirement that juror be county citizen is forfeited by failure to assert that as basis for challenge for cause); see also Johnson, 43 S.W.3d at 5 n. 6 (discussing past confusi

2004Appellant, therefore, failed to preserve any error on whether Fletcher was challengeable for cause. 1 See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 511 , 157 L.Ed.2d 378 (2003) (to preserve error on denied defense challenges for cause, defendant must demonstrate that he “asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause”); Mayo v. State, 4 S.W.3d 9, 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1999) (requirement that juror be county citizen is forfeited by failure to assert that as basis for challenge for cause); see also Johnson, 43 S.W.3d at 5 n. 6 (discussing past confusion of “

2025App. 2010); see also Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58, 83 (Tex. Crim.

2023Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58, 83 (Tex. Crim.

2010Standefer v. State , 59 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. Crim.

2010Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) ("[F]or a commitment question to be proper, one of the possible answers to that question must give rise to a valid challenge for cause."). 15 .

2010Allen v. State , 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Sells v. State , 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Gately v. State , 321 S.W.3d 72, 76 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2010, no pet.); Barela v. State , No. 08-02-00492-CR, 2004 WL 2192604 , at *10 (Tex.App.--El Paso Sept. 30, 2004, pet. granted) (not designated for publication) (cases setting forth the steps necessary to preserve error when a challenge for cause is denied).

2010Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Gately v. State, 321 S.W.3d 72, 76 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2010, no pet.); Barela v. State, No. 08-02-00492-CR, 2004 WL 2192604 , at *10 (Tex.App.--El Paso Sept. 30, 2004, pet. granted) (not designated for publication) (cases setting forth the steps necessary to preserve error when a challenge for cause is denied).

2009See Newbury v. State, 135 S.W.3d 22, 31 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Martinez v. State, 763 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). .

2009App. 2004); Martinez v. State, 763 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Tex. Crim.

2009Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744 ; Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 105 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), ce rt. denied, 520 U.S. 1200 , 117 S.Ct. 1561 , 137 L.Ed.2d 707 (1997).

2008App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200 (1997). 3 This comment does not show “a clear and specific challenge for cause” based upon article 35.16(a)(9).

2009Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744 ; Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 105 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), ce rt. denied, 520 U.S. 1200 , 117 S.Ct. 1561 , 137 L.Ed.2d 707 (1997).

2006App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200 , 117 S.Ct. 1561 , 137 L.Ed.2d 707 (1997).

2009Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744 ; Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 105 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), ce rt. denied, 520 U.S. 1200 , 117 S.Ct. 1561 , 137 L.Ed.2d 707 (1997).

2006App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1200 , 117 S.Ct. 1561 , 137 L.Ed.2d 707 (1997).

2025To preserve error on his challenges for cause, Vice had to “(1) assert a clear and specific challenge for cause, (2) use a peremptory challenge on the complained-of veniremember, (3) exhaust all of his peremptory challenges, (4) request and be denied additional peremptory challenges, and (5) be forced to accept an objectionable juror on the jury.” Cardenas v. State, 305 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009), aff’d, 325 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. Crim.

2010Id. (“To preserve error on his challenges for cause, [appellant] had to (1) assert a clear and specific challenge for cause, (2) use a peremptory challenge on the complained-of veniremember, (3) exhaust all of his peremptory challenges, (4) request and be denied additional peremptory challenges, and (5) be forced to accept an objectionable juror on the jury. [Appellant] did all of these things; the State has not argued otherwise.”) (internal citations omitted). 14 .