I t is c le ar, in b oth the wr itt e n a

nd or a l pl e a a dmo nis hme nts , th a t a

pp e lla nt p le d guil ty 1 based upon the understandingthat he could a ppeal f rom the trial judg e’s r

uling. F or example, the tr ia l ju dg e e xplic itl y

a sk e d a pp e lla nt, “ [A]r e y ou

ple a din g g uil ty

in o rd e r t o r e qu e st m e to

(continued...) 

## IN THE COUR T OF CRIMINA L APPEALS

OF TEX AS
N o. P D - 0670- 07

C LA R K D EW A Y N E M A Y S , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON THE ST ATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW I N CA USE NO . 0 6 - 0 6 - 0 0 0 7 5 - CR FRO M THE S I XT H CO URT O F AP PEALS LAM AR CO UNTY

H OL C OM B , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on, i n w hi c h M E YE RS and J OHNS ON , JJ . , j oi ne d. Ap pe lla nt s ou g ht t o p re se nt e vid e nc e of his dim ini sh e d ca

pa c ity a s it a ff

e c te d h is m e nta l st a te
a t th e tim e of the of

fe ns e . Th e tr ia l court ru le d tha t any su c h ev ide nc e wa s ina dmi ssi ble a t th e g uil t stag e. Appe llant subsequently enter ed a voluntary plea of g uilty conditioned upon his rig ht to appeal the trial judg e’s “ blanket” r uling. The c ourt of appe als held t hat t he trial court e rre d and re manded

1MAYS--2

(...continued) 1 approve y our plea

ag ree ment, which is a life se ntence with the rig ht to appeal on the issue of diminis hed ca

pacity ? ” Appe llant responded, “ Yes, sir.” the ca se for

further proce eding s. The State now a rg ues t h at appellant’s offe r of pr oof wa s ins u ff i cient to preserve err or for appellate revie w. The ma jority , citing T exas Rule of Evidence 103(a) (2) a

nd our dec ision in W

ar ne r v . S tat e , 969 S.W .2d 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), ag ree s with the State. Irespe ctfully

dissent. Rule 1 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) p r o v id e s th a t e r r o r ma y n o t b e p r e d ic a te d u

p o n a r u li n g w h ic h excludes evidenc e unless a substantial r ight of the par t y i s af fe cted a nd the substance of the e vidence was made known to the c ourt by offe r of proof or was appar ent from the context within which questions
wer e a s k e d
. A n o f

f e r o f p r o o f ma

y b e in qu e s ti o n - an d

- an s w e r f o r m, o r it ma

y b e in th e f

o r m of a concise statement by

counsel. W

ar ne r v . S tat e , 969 S.W .2d at 2. An off er of proof to be
acc omplish ed by

counsel’s c oncise stateme nt must i nclude a rea sonably

specific summary

of the evidenc e offe red and must state the rele vance of the e vidence unless the re levanc e is appa rent. Ib id
. As the m ajority notes, the purposes of an off er of proof a re: (1) to enable the trial court to re consider its ruling in light of

the evidenc e ac tually

offe red a nd (2) to ena

ble the appellate court, if ther e is an appea l, to determine whe ther t h e trial c ourt’s ruling was e rrone ous and har mful. K. Br oun, et al., McCormick

on Evidenc e § 51 at 249 (6th ed. 2006)
. After revie wing the re cord, I have no d o u b t that appellant satisfied Rule 103(a) (2)’ s require ments. Given def

ense c ounsel’s questioning of the ve nire, a nd g iven the subsequent colloquy betwee n defe nse counse l, t h e S t at e, an d the trial cour t, it is quite clea

r that the trial c ourt knew pe rf e c tly we ll, a t the mom e nt it ru le d on de fe ns e c ouns e l’ s p ro ff e r, that de fe ns e c ouns e l in te nd e d toMAYS--3

Court Reporter’ s Record, vol. 3, p. 87. 2 Court Reporter’ s Record, vol. 3, pp. 71-72, 78, 87. 3 Court Reporter’ s Record, vol. 3, p. 72. 4 Court Reporter’ s Record, vol. 3, pp. 78, 87. 5 offe r the testimony of a mental health expert to the effec t that appellant, be cause of schizophrenia, 2 3 ha d a n a bn or ma l un de rs tand ingof

re a lity and , at th e tim e he c omm itt e d th e capi tal mu rde r i n

4 qu e s t i o n , l a c k e d t h e m e n t a l c a p a c i t y t o f o r m t h e r e qu i s i t e m e n s r e a

o f i n t e n t i o n a l o r

kn o w i n g . In

5 other wor ds, defe nse counse l, in effe ct, g ave a rea sonably s p ec i fi c sum mary of the e vidence he of fe re d and he e xpla ine d it s r e le va

nc e . A n a

pp e llate c ourt

re vie wi ngthe re c or d s ho uld be a ble to see this. Admittedly , defe nse counse l could have be en more deft whe n ex plaining the nature of the evidenc e that he of

fer ed – but t he information that he provided to the t rial court, taken as a whole,
wa s n on e the le ss c le arl y

a de qu a te fo r t

he purp os e s of Rule 10 3( a )( 2) . A s I state d, the re c or d r e fl e c ts that the trial cour

t understood per fec tly

well, as should an appe llate cour t review ing the rec ord, what
e vid e nc e de fe ns e c ouns e l w a s o ff e ri ng . T hat is a ll that th e ru le re qu ir e s. I n support of its holding, the major ity cites our de cision in W

ar ne r v . S tat e , 969 S.W .2d 1, but that case is easily

distinguishable on its fac ts. I n W arner , the def

endant, Micha el Warner , who
was on trial for ag g ravated kidnapping , ag g ravated assault, and a rson, wante d to present e vidence
a t th e g uil t st a g e tha

t he had be e n a ve te ra n o f t he Vi e tna m War, that he su ff

e re d f ro m “ po sttr a umatic str e ss dis ord e r” (P TSD ), that he ha d r e c e ive d c ouns e lin g fo r t hat di so rd e r, and

that, beca use of his PTSD, he had not had the specific intent nece ssary to commit the offense s of ag g ravated kidnapping and ar son. Warner did not explain to the trial court, howe ver, the nature ofMAYS--4

PTSD, how he intended to p ro ve that he suf fer ed fr om it, or how evidenc e of his PTSD would be rele vant to the question of specific intent. We he ld that War ner had failed to make an ade quate of fer of proof under Rule 103( a)( 2). I n the instant case , in contrast, def ense c ounsel made it quite cle ar to the trial court that he intended to offe r proof from a me ntal health expert that appe llant suffer ed fr om sc hizo ph re nia , a re c og nize d me nta l di so rd e r, and that a pp e lla nt’ s sc hizo ph re nia

dis tor te d h is vie w o f r e a lity

and re nd e re d h im una

ble to f or m th e re qu isi te me ns re a . Th e of fe r o f p ro of

in t his
case suffe red f

rom none of the defe cts that the off er of proof in W

arner had. I would aff

irm the judg ment of the c ourt of appe als. Be cause the majority does not do so, Ire sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.

DEL I VERED APRI L22, 2009 PUB L I SH