Baptiste, Shedrick Jeseph
9/24/2025
“Article V, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution gives district judges ‘judicial Power’ to hear and determine felony cases. Associate judges have no ‘judicial power.’ Nevertheless, the Legislature has authorized associate judges in Harris County to conduct voir dire and determine the makeup of a jury. Is the selection of a jury an ultimate judicial determination that only a district judge can make?”
An associate judge presided over voir dire in Baptiste’s trial. On appeal, Baptiste argued that his conviction was void because the Texas Constitution—Article V, Sections 1, 7, and 8—vests judicial power over felony cases in district courts. He contended that provisions of the Government Code (Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 54a.006(d), 54a.008(a)(15)), which permit associate judges to conduct jury selection, are therefore unconstitutional.
The First Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Relying on Howard v. State, 690 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), which held that a magistrate may exercise any authority granted by statute that doesn’t require an ultimate judicial determination, the court observed that it previously extended Howard’s reasoning to Harris County associate judges presiding over jury selection. Clifton v. State, No. 01-22-00641-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2023, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication); see also Allen v. State, No. 14-23-00761-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 1, 2025, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication) (same). Applying the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the court concluded that the Constitution’s grant of authority to district judges does not implicitly bar associate judges or other judicial officers from participating in voir dire when authorized by statute. Accordingly, the associate-judge statutes do not violate the Texas Constitution.
Baptiste contends that conducting voir dire is an ultimate judicial function. He stresses that jury selection is an integral stage of trial and that a defendant has a “substantial right” to a “properly conducted” process. Citing Marrow v. State, 62 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex. 1933), which defines jurisdiction as the power to hear and determine matters in controversy, Baptiste argues that this definition encompasses voir dire because the presiding judge rules on challenges to the array, determines juror qualifications, and resolves Batson challenges. He asserts that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the authority of associate judges unchecked and maintains that the Texas Constitution grants this power exclusively to district judges, forbidding its delegation.