Judge narrows witnesses, grants motion in limine and begins voir dire in 252nd District Court retrial

Judge Raquel West presided over pretrial matters and voir dire in the 252nd District Court, telling the record the state and defense were present and that she had reviewed competing filings on admissibility of "offense evidence." The judge said she was "inclined to do is to allow TK and SM, to testify and not allow MN and RD," and ordered counsel to prepare appropriate limiting instructions.

The judge also granted the state's amended motion in limine and additional oral requests, instructing counsel and witnesses not to reference the prior mistrial or rehash the previous trial on the record. "We've kind of argued it already a couple of times," the judge said when announcing her disposition. She noted that an application for probation was on file and that other pretrial matters appeared in order.

Before the jury was sworn, prosecutors and defense counsel both previewed the law and evidence for potential jurors. The state's attorney explained the elements of the charged offense under chapter 22 of the Texas Penal Code and told jurors the Court of Criminal Appeals has not provided a statutory definition of "penetration," leaving jurors to apply ordinary meaning. "Penetration is left, according to the court, to the jurors to apply your own ordinary and common meaning," the prosecutor told the panel.

Counsel emphasized the statutory phrase "by any means," telling jurors that penetration could be by a body part or an object if it was nonconsensual. The prosecutor also reviewed the range of punishment for the charged offense (described to jurors as a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years) and asked whether prospective jurors could consider the full punishment range if they later found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense counsel conducted extended voir dire focused on the presumption of innocence and jurors' ability to follow legal instructions. He framed the questioning with a direct prompt to each panelist: "If you were me and you were here representing [the defendant], should I want you on my jury?" Counsel went row by row asking whether jurors could presume the defendant innocent, require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and honestly consider the full punishment range (including probation in appropriate cases). Several jurors indicated prior experiences or views that would require follow-up: multiple jurors said they could not consider probation, others disclosed relevant family or professional experience, and some asked to speak to the judge outside the group's hearing.

The court scheduled follow-up sidebar or individual questioning for jurors who raised concerns. After more than an hour of voir dire exchanges the court took a short administrative break so attorneys could sort which panelists to recall.

What happens next: The court will continue individual follow-up questioning for jurors flagged during voir dire and proceed with empanelment once the court and counsel resolve those concerns. The judge also left open the process for giving specific limiting instructions if witnesses TK or SM testify about prior acts.