Wrongfully Denying Permission to Strike a Juror

In Irvine v. State, 857 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd), the appellant argued that he should have been permitted to strike a juror. However, the court found that his counsel "failed to assert 'a clear and specific challenge for cause' regarding juror number two, 'clearly articulating the grounds therefor'" and consequently did not preserve error for appellate review. Id. at 926. The court reached this conclusion based on trial counsel's statement "Your honor, the defense makes a motion to strike." Id. trial court's decision to deny a defendant's challenge for cause should not be overturned unless, in light of the entire voir dire examination of the prospective juror, bias or prejudice is established as a matter of law. See Little v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). We must defer to the trial judge's decision because he or she is in the best position to make such a determination. See Butler v. State, 872 S.W.2d 227, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Therefore, the question of whether a challenge for cause was wrongfully denied by the trial court is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. See Staley v. State, 887 S.W.2d 885, 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).