I join the opinion of the Court with the understanding that the first two paragraphs in Part II of the opinion (ante, at 4) do not say that voir dire examination is justified by the second and third of the three "possible purposes" that are mentioned. The author of the opinion has joined the view, which I have set out elsewhere, that the peremptory-challenge procedure does not justify a party's questioning the jurors about matters other than their qualifications to serve. See Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Tex. Cr. App. 2002) (concurring opinion). And I feel sure that no member of the Court thinks that "indoctrinat[ing] the jurors" is a legitimate purpose.

En banc.

Filed June 22, 2005.

Publish.