In State v. Garza, 143 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2004, pet. ref'd), venire person Keith Adams responded during voir dire that he could not sit fairly in a case in which the defendant was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. He also answered that he was in law enforcement and that there were "other reasons" why he did not want to sit on the jury. Defendant's trial counsel did not challenge Adams for cause or use a peremptory strike against him, and Adams was seated on the jury. Following his conviction, Garza filed a motion for new trial in which he alleged ineffective assistance due to trial counsel's failure to strike Adams. At the evidentiary hearing, Garza's counsel testified that he was distracted during voir dire by news that his wife had been diagnosed with cancer. He stated that he failed in his responsibility by not conducting individual voir dire and that, had he not been distracted, he would have challenged Adams for cause or used a peremptory strike against him. He confirmed that leaving Adams on the jury was not his intent and was a mistake. The trial court granted Garza's motion, finding that trial counsel's failure to strike Adams amounted to ineffective assistance. The State appealed, but the appellate court upheld the trial court's finding of ineffective assistance as the record contained counsel's explicit testimony that his failure to strike Adams was not trial strategy but a mistake. Garza, 143 S.W.3d at 150.