strike, on behalf of the State, a venireman on appeal after voir dire error has been pronounced. But Grijalva is founded on the notion that the State caused the improper ex-cusal by issuing a challenge for cause, and is therefore penalized because of the advantages it would otherwise receive by holding a peremptory strike back. Where the trial judge, not the State, is solely responsible for the improper excusal, the justification for penalizing the State under Grijalva disappears. It is entirely appropriate in such a case to fall back on the rationale in Weaver, supra, Payton, supra, and Culley, supra, and assess harm to the defendant on whether the state had remaining peremptory strikes left at the close of the voir dire. See also Zinger v. State, 932 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)(<HOLDING>); Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102
recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge recognizing cause of action for wrongful death holding wrongful granting of states challenge for cause reversible error holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error