context: In this instance, the court may have acted within its discretion in excusing veni-re member number 32 for "good reason," regardless of whether it could have done so pursuant to Article 35.16(a)(ll).
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 982 S.W.2d 386, 389
citation_a.parenthetical: appellate court must uphold the trial court's decision to excuse a venire member if it was correct under any theory of law applicable to the case
citation_a.sentence: See Wright, 28 S.W.3d at 533; Erazo v. State, 93 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 144 S.W.3d 487 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (“If a juror cannot understand the routine words and concepts used in a trial, the juror may be excused.”); see also Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (appellate court must uphold the trial court’s decision to excuse a venire member if it was correct under any theory of law applicable to the case).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: "If a juror cannot understand the routine words and concepts used in a trial, the juror may be excused."
citation_b.sentence: See Wright, 28 S.W.3d at 533; Erazo v. State, 93 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 144 S.W.3d 487 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (“If a juror cannot understand the routine words and concepts used in a trial, the juror may be excused.”); see also Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (appellate court must uphold the trial court’s decision to excuse a venire member if it was correct under any theory of law applicable to the case).