NO. 07-08 -034 8-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D OC TOBER14, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ CHRISTO PHER MILLS , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 6 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HO CK L EY CO UNT Y; TH NO . 07- 03- 6403; HO NO RA BLE P AT PH ELAN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Chr is topher

M il ls , was conv icted by a j ur y of the o ffense of ag g ra v ated a s s a u ltwit h a d e a d ly we a p o n ca u s in g s e ri o u s b o d il y h a rm . He wa s se n t e n c e d t o fo rt y-f ive y ears co nfi ne me nt an d fi ne d $1 0, 00 0. Ap pe l l an t c on te nd s ( 1) th e ev i de nc e at tr i al in suppo rtof the e lementof ser iou s b odi ly har m was leg all y ins uff ic ien t, (2 ) the e v ide nce of2

serious bo dily

harm w as factu ally

insuf f icient, a nd (3) th e trial court com mitt ed reversible er ro r by ov er ru li ng Appel lan t’ s o bje ction s to t he St ate’ s c los ing arg uments co mpari ng Appel lan t t o two not or iou s s er ial murderers a nd an infamous ter ro ri st. W e beg in w it h an anal y si s o f Appell ant’ s t hird is sue becau se w e find itdi spos it iv e of the appeal
. Base d upon that anal y si s, w e rev erse and remand for further proceed ing s cons is tent w it h thi s o pin ion
. Back ground On M arch 22, 2 007, App e lla n t was ind icted b y a H ock ley

C ounty Grand J ur

y for know ing ly

or reck les sl y

causi ng seri ous bodi ly inju ry to Ar iel W ald en byst abbi ng her w it h a knife. During the three day trial, w itnesse s testif ied that Appellan t stab bed Ariel multip le time s nea r the T exas Dome o n the Sout h Plains College cam pus. Appe llant’s core defense was cent ered around t he pres entat ion of ev ide nce tendi ng to est abl is h that he w as insa n e a t the time of the s tabbi ng . In furtherance of that d efensiv e the or y , he produce d three ps y chi atr is ts and tw o ps y chol og is ts. Immedia tel y

pr ior to the s ubmis si on of

the cas e to the j ur

y for d eli berati on dur ing the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e o f the tr ial , i n c oncl udi ng the Stat e’s cl osi ng arg ument, the p ro se cu to r argue d th e fo llo wing: STATE: Noti n hi s r ig ht mi nd. Y eah, w e use that te rm, meani ng i t’ s o ut

of the ordin ar

y , meani ng i t’ s n o t wha t t he av erag e person w oul d hav e done, not w hat you and I woul d hav e done. Y ou and I wou ld n ’thav e s tuc k yoursel f in t he th ro at w it h a kni fe. That’ s n ot rightmin d, bu t t hat’ s n ot i nsani ty
. JohnAppel l ant pr eser v ed j ur y ar gum ent er r orby m aki ng a cont em por aneou s obj ect i on a nd o bt ai ni ng a n 1 a d v e rs e ru l i n g . S e e C o o k s v . S ta te , 8 4 4 S .W .2 d 6 9 7 , 7 2 7 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); D o m in g u e z v . S ta te , 125 S .W .3 d 7 5 5 , 7 6 3 (T e x .A p p .– H o u s to n [1 D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f’d ). st 3 W ay ne Gacy , t he c low n murderer , was ki ll ing thos e boys a nd putti ng them under

the floor of his hous e. DE FEN SE: Y our

honor , I w ill o bject. That’ s i mprop er arg ument, to br ing someth ing thati s n ot i n ev ide nce. CO URT: Ov er ru led
. ST AT E: W asn’t in his right mind. Sa ne. Jef f reyDahm er, killing those bo y s a nd e at i ng t he m. DE FEN SE: Y our

H onor , may

I hav e a — CO URT: One mi nute. DE FEN SE: — r unni ng obj ect ion to thi s l ine of arg ument? COURT: Yes, sir
. S TATE : O u to f h i s m i n d t o e a ts o me b o d y . S a n e . M u h a mm e d Atta

fly ing a pl ane i nto the Nor th Tow er ki ll ing hundreds of innoc ent me n, w om en, and children. N ot som eth ing someb ody ordinary w oul d do, b ut t hose doct ors woul d pathi m on t he bac k a nd say , “ Poor

l ittl e M uhammed Atta.” Thank y ou. T h e re a ft e r, the jury foun d App ellantg uilty of agg rav ate d assa ult w ith a de adly w eapon c ausi ng se ri ous bodi ly i nju ry , and thi s a ppeal foll ow ed. 1 Discus sion Appel lan t c ontends the Stat e’s cl osi ng arg ument w as improper becau se the S tate arg ued facts not in ev ide nce and compared Appel lan t’ s s tate of mind t o tha t of three4

notor iou s k il le rs –John W ay ne Ga cy , J eff re y D ahmer , and M ohammed Atta. As su ch, Appe l l a n t a s s e rt s t h e S t a t e ’ s a rg u me n t i n t e r j e ct e d p rej u d i c i a l fa ct s n o t i n e v i d e n c e to re peatedl y

att ack hi s i nsani ty

defense and i mprop er ly i nfluenc e the j ur

y . T he St ate asserts tha t its arg u m e n t s w ere a pe rmissible respo nse to Appe llant’s state me nts th at App ellantwas n ot in his “rig ht m ind” at th e time of the incide nt an d sho uld be foun d no t guilty

byre a s o n o f

in sanity. The State conte nds its argume nts also re s p o n d e d t o A p p e ll a n t ’s s t a t e m e n t s t h a to n e o f h is e xp e rt s lo o k e d li k e E rn e s tHe m in gwa y, sound ed l ik e God , and w as tel li ng the tr uth. I. St and ard o f Rev iew There are four g eneral areas of prope r jur y arg ument: (1 ) ple as for l aw enforc ement, (2 ) summati ons of the ev ide nce, ( 3) reason abl e de d u ct io ns from the ev ide nce, and (4 ) re spons es to arg uments from opp osi ng co unsel
. Jacks on v . St ate, 17 S. W .3d 6 64, 6 73 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. An i mprop er arg ument cons ti tutes re v ersi ble er ro r w hen, in li g ht of the record as a w hol e, i t i s e xtreme or mani festl y

i mprop er , v iol ates a mandat or y st atute , or i nje cts new facts har mf ul to the acc used int o the tr ial proceed ing s. Bor janv. Sta te , 787 S.W .2d 5 3, 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1990)
. See B ar nes v. State, 70 S. W .3d 294 (Tex.App .–Fo rt W orth 20 02, pet. ref ’d). Moreover, argume nts referen cing matte rs that are n ot in evidence and may not be i nferred from t he ev ide nce are us ual ly “ desi g ned t o arouse the p ass ion and prejud ices of the jury and as such are highly inapp ropriate .” Bor

jan , 787 S.W .2d a t 57. T hatsa id, an instruction to the jury to disregard an im prop er jury argumen t is g ene rally5

suffici ent t o c ure er ro r. Shannon v. State , 9 4 2 S
. W
. 2 d 5 91, 597 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 6). See LeClea r v. State, No
. 07-06 -018 5-CR, 2007 W L 30 045 89, at *6 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2007, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)
. II. Jury

A rgument Remar kabl y , t his C our

t c onsi dered th e propr iety of the S tate’ s jur

y arg ument, under si mil ar ci rc umstan ces , a li ttl e ov er ten y ears a g o, an d found rev ersi ble er ro r. Se e Br own v. State , 978 S.W .2d 7 08, 7 13- 14 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1998, pet. re f’d)
. In Br own , t he prosec utor

co mpare d the ac cus ed to noto ri ous murde re rs dur ing cl osi ng arg ument for the prop osition that , altho ugh the accuse d claime d to be me nta lly ill or legally insan e, so did Jeffrey D ahmer , J ohn W ay ne Ga cy , and Ted Bundy –al l of w hom ei ther

w ent t o pr is on or re cei v ed th e deat h penal ty
. Id
. In find ing re vers ib le er ro r, the Brow n C our t s tated the fo llo wing: Com paring an accu sed o r his a c t s to tho se of a noto rious criminal is, acc o rd i n g t o t h e T e x a s C o u rto f C r i mi n a l A p p e a l s , a n i mp ro p e r and er ro neous i nter

jecti on of facts not in the record. [ ci tati ons omitted]. Her e, t he Sta te’ s com m ents are tan tamount tocom paringa pp ellant

and his defe nse to Jeffr ey Dah m er

, John Wayne G acy

, and T ed Bun dy and t

he def enses they r ais ed
. Each of the t hree i ndi v idu als to w hic h he w as compared w as or is a no tor iou s s er ial mur d e re r w hose despi cabl e acts re main fresh in the collective mind o f

the pu blic. And, in arg uing as itd id , t h e S tate not on ly invoked the mem oryof

the ho rrific crimes the y comm itted but also ef

fectively ask ed th e j urors t o puni sh appel lan t l ik e the y w ere puni shed, thati s, by the ass ess ment of i mpri sonment
. This v iol ated She ll [ v. State , 711 S.W .2d 7 46, 748 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1986, no p et.) ]. 978 S.W .2d at 714 (emp hasis ad ded ).T hat t he St at e com par ed t he a ccused her e t o t he n ot or i ous t er r or i st , M oham m ed At t a, r at hert han 2 T e d B u n d y i s o f n o m o m e n t. S e e G o n za l e z v . S ta te , 115 S. W
. 2d 2 78, 285 - 86 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 3, pet
. r ef ’ d) ( r ev er si bl e er r orw her e pr osecut orcom par ed accused t o O sam a bi n La den i n con nect i on wi t h t he 9 /1 1 a tta c k o n T w i n T o w e rs i n N e w Y o rk c i ty ). S ee als o M as s eyv. S t a te , N o. 04- 99- 00040 - C R , 199 9 W L 7 9 2 4 5 4 , a t *5 -7 (T e x .A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 9 , p e t. re f’d ) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). 6 The Br own Cou rtrev ersed the acc used’ s conv icti on findi ng har mf ul er ro r becau se: (1 ) the e rror

arose immediat e ly pri or to the j ur

y reti ri ng for d eli berati ons; ( 2) ov er the app ellant ’s objectio n, th e trial court pe rmitte d the State to cont inue its arg um entpossibly lend ing i ts im

pr im atur to a sanity

f ind ing ; and ( 3) the Stat e di d notst op onc e i t had made it s p oin t by

referenc e to Dah mer but conti nued to inv oke the names of two oth er

hei nous murde re rs . “E ach addi ti onal co mpari son added t o the i ncend iar y and emoti onal effectthe cr imi nal acts of Dahmer , Ga cy, and Bundy had on a re asona ble j uror ’s ps y che. ” 978 S.W .2d a t 715
. 2 Here, again, th e Sta te’s argume nt is tant am o u n tto com paring App ellantand his defense t o J ohn W ay ne Ga cy , J eff re y D ahm e r, a n d M ohammed Atta an d the defenses the y raised. Beca use th e Sta te’s argume nt relied on facts not in evidence and was hig hly improper , we find the t ri al cour t er re d w hen it ov er ru led Appel lan t’ s o bje cti on and per mitt ed the S tate to c onti nue i ts improper co mpari sons . Altho ugh w e ha v e revi ewed the en tire record and fou nd amp le evidence to supp ort the j ur y’s v erdict of g uil t, howev er , as i n Br own , we find the t ri al cour t’ s e rror har mf ul becau se: ( 1) the er ro r arose immedi atel y before the j ur

y beg an del ibe ra ti ons, ( 2) the tr ial cour t per mitt ed th e St ate t o c onti nue i ts li ne of arg ument ov er Appel la n t’ s o bje cti onT he St at e’ s r el i ance on G ue rr ero -La ra v . S t ate , N o. 13- 01- 099- C R , 200 2 W L 17 65543 3 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 2002, no p et
. ) ( not desi gnat ed f orpub l i cat i on) i s m i spl aced. I n G ue rr ero -La ra , t he pr osecut or ’ s st at em ent i n cl osi ng d i d no t com par e t he def endan t ’ s behav i or wi t h Adol ph H i t l er and C har l es M an s on bu t w as l i m i t ed t o a stat em en t “t ha t al l pe rso ns ha ve g oo d a nd ba d d ay s . ” I d. a t *4
.

H a d d a dv . S ta te , 860 S. W
. 2d 9 47, 953 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 19 93, pet
. re f ’ d) ( quot i ng B ro w n v . S ta te , 4 1 6 8 T e x .C rim . 6 7 , 3 2 3 S .W .2 d 9 5 4 (1 9 5 9 ))
. 7 possib ly lendin g its i

m pr i m atur to a sanity

findi ng , ( 3) no c urati v e i nst ru cti on was is sued, (4 ) the Stat e did not sto p w it h a si ng le re ferenc e to G acy but cont inu ed w it h referenc es to Dah mer, and Atta , and ( 5) the Stat e s oug ht t o us e Atta’ s n otor iety i n order to dis credi t, not o n ly A p p e ll a n t ’s co re d e fe n s e , b u ta ls o h is e xp e rt s ’ t e s t im o n y. In respon se to t he St ate’ s a ss erti ons, i t s uff ic es to s ay s im p ly thatj ur y arg ument unsup por

ted b y the re cord d e sign e d to arouse the j urors’ pas si on and preju dic es is “ no re spons e” to an opponent’ s arg uments
. Qui te t he c ontrar y , t he St ate’ s c los ing arg ument 3 w as “an imp rope r and errone ous interjection of facts no t in the reco rd.” Br own , 978 S.W .2d at 71 4.Al thoug h an acc used is not enti tl ed to a per fect tri al, he or

she is e nti tl ed to a t ri al tha t is at least “tolerab ly fair.” Id. at 716
. “ In a s s e s s in g t h e p ote ntialities a t bar, w e are 4 una ble to s a y t h a tt he cu mu lative ef fect of each instan ce of

miscon ductw as nil or only slig ht.” Id. Be caus e w e c annot say w it h c onfidenc e th a t th e e rro r ste mming for t he improper arg ument ha d no influ ence, or onl y a s li g ht i nfluenc e on the ju ry’s deci si on to re ject Ap pella n t’ s ins ani ty defense, w e hol d tha t t he prosec utor ’s arg ument was both improper and har mf ul. The prosec utor made the arg uments and “mus t hav e bel iev ed th at8

the j ur y woul d pl ace at l eastso me w eig ht on i ts improper arg ument; other

w is e, t he St ate w ould not ha v e inc lu d e d the referen ces in its soliloquy to the jury .” Ma ss ey, 1 9 9 9 WL 792454, at *6. Ac cordin g ly , we f ind the tr ial courterred in ov er ru li ng Appel lan t’ s o bje cti on to t he St ate’ s i mprop er j ur y arg uments and the e rror was harmful. See Tex . R . Ap p. P
. 44.2( b)
. See al

so Gonz ale z , 115 S.W .3d a t 283 -8 6; Br own , 978 S.W .2d at 7 1 4- 16; Ma ss ey, 199 9 W L 79245 4, at*4- 6. Appel lan t’ s thi rd is sue is sus tai ned and hi s remaini ng is sues are preter mitt ed. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 47. 1. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s revers e d a n d the caus e i s remanded for furth er proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion
. Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Justice Do not p ubl is h.