CAUSE NO. AP - 77,040

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

CEDRIC ALLEN RICKS Appellant VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Appeal of Cause No. 1361004R Out of the 371st Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas The Hon. Mollee Westfall, Presiding

ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED

MARY B. THORNTON Attorney for Appellant 3901 Race Street Fort Worth, Texas 76111 Telephone No.: (817) 759-0400 Telecopier No.: (817) 831-3002 marybrabson01@gmail.com State Bar No. 19713700 AP-77,040 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 8/3/2015 4:58:09 PM Accepted 8/4/2015 7:49:24 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKA d a m L
. A r r i n g t o n A t t o r n e y a t L a w 1 0 2 0 M a c o n S t r e e t , S u i t e 7 F o r t W o r t h , T e x a s 7 6 1 0 2 T e l e p h o n e N o . : ( 8 1 7 ) 3 9 5 - 3 6 7 4 T e l e c o p i e r N o . : (6 8 2 ) 8 4 1
- 1 3 9 9 S t a t e B a r N o . 2 4 0 8 5 6 8 5I D E N T I T Y O F P A R T I E S A N D C O U N S E L

T he fol l ow ing i s a c om pl et e l i st of al l part i es li st ed i n t he t ri al court ’s fi nal Judg m e nt and thei r t ri al and a ppel l at e c ounsel pursuant t o R u l e 3 8
. 1 ( a ) o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e : 1
. C edri c A ll en Ri c ks T D C J # 0 0 9 9 9 5 9 3 A l l an B. Pol unski U ni t 3 8 7 2 FM 3 5 0 S out h Li vi ng st on, T ex as 7 7 3 5 1 2
. T he Hon. Wi l l iam H. “Bi l l ” Ray A t t orney at Law

/A ppel l ant ’s T ri al C ounsel 5 1 2 M ai n S t reet , S ui te 3 0 8 Fort Wort h, T ex as 7 6 1 0 2 3
. T he Hon. S t eve Gordon A t t orney at Law

/A ppel l ant ’s T ri al C ounsel 2 1 0 1 M oneda S treet Fort Wort h, T ex as 7 6 1 0 2 4
. T he Hon. S haren Wi l son D i st ri ct A tt orney of T arrant C ount y , T ex as Fourt h Fl oor of t he T i m C urry C ri m i nal Just i c e C ent er 4 0 1 West Bel knap Fort Wort h, T ex as 7 6 1 9 6 5
. T he Hon. Robert K . Gi l l A sst . C ri m i nal D i st ri c t A t t orney /S t at e’s T ri a l C ounsel T arrant C ount y D i st ri c t A t t orney ’ s Offi c e Fourt h Fl oor of t he T i m C urry C ri m i nal Just i c e C ent er 4 0 1 West Bel knap iFort Wort h, T ex as 7 6 1 9 6

6
. T he Hon. Robert Husem an A sst . C ri m i nal D i st ri c t A t t orney /S t at e’s T ri a l C ounsel T arrant C ount y D i st ri c t A t t orney ’ s Offi c e Fourt h Fl oor of t he T i m C urry C ri m i nal Just i c e C ent er 4 0 1 West Bel knap Fort Wort h, T ex as 7 6 1 9 6 7
. T he Hon. D ebra Wi ndsor C hi ef of Post C onvi c t ion T arrant C ount y D i st ri c t A t t orney ’ s Offi c e Fourt h Fl oor of t he T i m C urry C ri m i nal Just i c e C ent er 4 0 1 West Bel knap Fort Wort h, T ex as 7 6 1 9 6

i iT A B LE O F C O N T E N T S P A G E

ID E NT I T Y OF PA RT IE S A ND C OU NS E L.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i T A BLE OF C ONT E NT S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i IND E X OF A U T HORIT IE S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x i S TA TE M E NT OF T HE C A S E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x v A PPE LLA NT ’S POINT S OF E RROR (IS S UE S PRE S E NT E D ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xvi i i S TA TE M E NT OF FA C T S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S UM M A RY

OF A PPE LLA NT ’S A RGU M ENT S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 POINT OF E RROR ONE (A RGU M E NT ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O H I S WA RRA NT L E S S A RRE S T WHIC H WA S I N V I O L A T I O N O F T H E F O U R T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( CR
. I

-2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 4 4
- 8 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ; X

L V
- D X 1 )
. POINT OF E RROR T WO (A RGU M E NT ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RR ED IN DE NY I NG A P P E L LA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL

i i iE VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O H I S WA RRA NT L E S S A RRE S T WHIC H W A S I N VIOLA T ION OF AR T

I C L E 1 , S E C T

I O N 9 O F T H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N A ND A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 6 , 1 8
. 0 2 , A N D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N

AL P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V I- 1 4 4
- 8 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ; X L V
- D X 1 )
. POINT OF E RROR T HRE E (A RGU ME NT ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D I N DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O T H E W A R R A N T L E S S S E A R C H O F H I S A PA RT M E NT WHIC H WA S IN VIOLA T ION O F T H E F O U R T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V I
- 7 4
- 1 1 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 )
. POINT OF E RROR FOU R (A RGU M E NT )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

T HE T RIA L C OU R T E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O SU PPR E S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O T H E W A R R A N T L E S S S E A R C H O F H I S A PA RT M E NT WHIC H WA S IN VIOLA T ION O F A R T IC L E I , S E C T

I O N 9 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T I T U T I O N A N D A R T

IC L E S 1
. 0 6 , 1 8
. 0 2 , AN D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T

H E T E X A S C O D E O F i vC R IM I N A L P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
4 0 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 7 4
- 1 1 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 )
. POINT OF E RROR FIVE (A RGU M E NT ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E R RE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT OFFIC IA LS BE C A U SE A PPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O CO U NS E L I N VIOLA T ION OF T

H E F I F T H , S I X T H , A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( CR
. I

-2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
- S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. POINT OF E RROR S IX (A RGU M E NT ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT OFFIC IA LS BE C A U SE A PPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RI GHT T O C OU NS E L I N VIOLA T IO N OF A R T

I C L E I , S E C T

I O N 1 0 O F T H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N A N D A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 5 , 1 5
. 1 7 , A N D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N

A L P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. POINT OF E RROR S E VE N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RR ED IN DE NY I NG A P P E L LA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL

vE VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT OFFIC IA LS BE C A U SE A PPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O C OU NS E L I N V IO LA TION OF O K L A H O M A S T A T U T E S 2 2
- 2 5 1 A N D 2 2
- 2 5 2
. (C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V I
1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
- S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. POINT OF E RROR E IGHT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9

T H E T R I A L C O U R T C O M M I T T E D RE VE RS IBLE E RROR IN A L L OWING THE S T A T E T O INT ROD U C E S X2 2 5 A N A U T OPS Y PHOT O GRA PH OF JA M E S GONZA LE Z’S BRA IN BE C A U S E T HE PRE JU D IC IA L EFFE C T G R E A T LY OU T WE IGHE D A NY PROBA T IVE VA L U E
. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 1 1 3
- 1 6 ; X

L I V
- S X # 2 2 5 )
. POINT OF E RROR NINE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9

T H E T R I A L C O U R T C O M M I T T E D RE VE RS IBLE E RROR IN A LLOWING THE S T A T E T O INT ROD U C E S X2 2 6 A N A U T OPS Y PHOT O GRA PH OF JA M E S GONZA LE Z’S BRA IN BE C A U S E T HE PRE JU D IC IA L EFFE C T G RE AT LY OU T WE IGHE D A NY PROBA T I V E VA L U E
. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 1 1 3
- 1 6 ; X

L I V
- S X # 2 2 6 )
.
POINT OF E RROR T E N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O DE C LA RE THE “1 0 -1 2 ” RU LE U NC ONS TIT U T I ONA L ON THE G R O U N D S T H A T I T C R E A T E S A N

viIM PE RM I SS IB LE RIS K OF A RBIT RA RY IM POS IT ION OF T HE D E A T H PE NA LT Y
. ( C R
. I
- 1 8 7
- 2 1 7 ; R R
. V

- 7 9
- 8 0 )
. POINT OF E RROR E LE VE N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6

A R T IC L E 3 7
. 0 7 1 O F T

H E T E X AS C O D E O F C R I M I N A L P R O C E D U R E I S U NC O NS TIT U T I ONA L BE C AU S E IT F A ILS T O PLA C E T HE BU RD E N OF PROOF O F THE S T A T E R E G A R D I N G A G G R A V A T I N G E VID E NC E
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V
- 6 8 )
. POINT OF E RROR T WE LVE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O PRE C L U D E THE IM POS IT ION OF T HE D E A T H PE NA LT Y ON GROU ND S T HA T T HE IND IC T M E NT FA ILE D T O C O N T A I N A N Y A L L E G A T I O N S RE GA RD ING T HE PU NIS HM E NT S PE C IA L IS S UE
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V
- 6 8 ). POINT OF E RROR T HIRT E E N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3

T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A P P E L L A N T ’ S O B J E C T I O N T O T H E A PPLIC A TION OF T E XA S ’ D EA T H PE NA LT Y S C H E M E B E C A U S E I T H A S B E E N A RBIT RA RILY IM POS E D I N VIOLA T ION OF T H E E I G H T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( C r . I
- 1 4 7
- 5 0 ; R R
. V
- 6 8
- 6 9 )
.
vi iPOINT OF E RROR FOU RT E E N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 T HE T E XA S D E A T H PE NA LT Y S T A TU TE VIOLA T E S THE JU RY TRIA L GU A RA NT EE O F T H E F O U R T

E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

, A S INT E RPRE T E D IN A P P R E N D I V N E W J E R S E Y , R I N G V A R I

Z O N A , B L A K E L Y V W A S H I N G T O N , U N I T E D S T A T E S V B O O K E R , A ND C U N N I N G H

A M V C A L I F O R N I

A B Y FA ILING T O PLA C E U PON THE S T A T E THE B U R D E N O F P R O V I N G B E Y O N D A R E AS O N AB L E DO UB T A N E G A T I V E AN S W E R T O T HE M IT IGA T I ON S PE C IA L IS S U E
. ( C R
. I
1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V

- 6 8 )
. POINT OF E RROR FIFT E E N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5

A P P E L L A N T ’ S R I G H T S U N D E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U S E O F T

H E S I X T H A N D F O U R T

E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T

I T U T I O N WE RE V I O L A T E D W H E N T H E M O T H E R O F D E C E D E NT , ROS IE GONZA LE Z, T ES T I FIE D T O INFORM A T ION PE RT A INING T O A N E X T R A N E OU S OFFE NS E D U RING T H E PU NIS HM E NT S T A GE OF HIS T RIA L. ( R R
. X X X I V
- 2 5
- 2 8 ; X

L
- 3 6
- 3 7 , 6 6

)
. POINT OF E RROR S IXT EE N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5

A P P E L L A N T ’ S R I G H T S U N D E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U S E O F A R T

I C L E 1 , § 1 0 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N WE RE V I O L A T E D W H E N T H E M O T H E R O F D E C E D E NT R O S IE GONZA LE Z T E S T IFIE D T O

vi i iI N F O R M A T I O N P E R T A I N I N G T O A N E XT RA NE OU S O F F E N S E D U RING THE PU NIS HM E NT S T A GE OF HIS T RIA L. ( R R
. X X X I V
- 2 5
- 2 8 ; X

L
- 3 6
- 3 7 , 6 6

)
. POINT OF E RROR S E VE NT E E N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5

R EVE RS IBLE E RROR OC C U RRE D WHE N T H E M O T H E R O F D EC E D E NT ROS IE GONZA L E Z T E S T IFIE D T O I NFORM A T I ON PE RT AIN I N G TO AN E X

TR AN E O US O F FE NS E D U RING T HE PU NIS HM ENT S TA GE OF HIS T RIA L IN VIOLA T I O N OF T HE HE A RS A Y RU LE
. ( R R
. X X X IV
- 2 5
- 2 8 ). POINT OF E RROR E IGHT EE N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7

TH E T R I A L C O U RT A BU S E D IT S D IS CRE T ION A ND VIOLA T E D A PPE LLA NT ’S RIGHT S U ND E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U

S E O F T H E U N IT E D S T AT E S C O N S T

I T U T I O N BY PE RM IT TING T HE S E XU A L A SS A U LT NU RS E E X A M INE R T O T E ST IFY T O S T A T EM E NT S M A DE BY ROS IE GONZA LE Z RE GA RD I NG A N E X T RA NE OU S OFFE NS E A LLE GE D LY C OM MI TTE D B Y AP P E L L AN T. (R R
. X X X V
- 1 1
- 2 0 )
. POINT OF E RROR NINE T EE N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7

T HE T RIA L COU RT A BU S E D I TS D I S C R E T I ON A ND VIOLA T E D A PPE LLA NT ’S RIGHT S U ND E R A R T

I C L E 1 , § 1 0 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T I T U T I O N B Y P E R M I T T I N G T H E S E XU A L A SS A U LT NU RS E E XA M INE R T O

i xT ES T IFY T O S T A T E M E NT S MA D E BY ROS IE GONZA L E Z RE GA RD I NG A N E X T RA NE OU S OFFE NS E A LLE GE D LY C OM M I T T E D BY A PPE LLA NT
. (

R R
. X X X V
- 1 1
- 2 0 )
. POINT OF E RROR T WE NT Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 IF NO N E OF A PPE LLA NT ’S POINT S O F E RROR ARE RE VE RS IBLE P E R S E , THE N A L L O F T H E E R R O R S P R E S E N T C U M U L A T I V E E R R O R R E Q U I R I N G R E V E R S AL W H E N C O N S I DE R E D T O G E T H E R
. ( R e c o r d i n i t

s e n t i r e t y )
. C ONC LU S ION A ND PRA Y E R.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 S TA TE M E NT OF C O MPLIA NC E WIT H RU LE 9 .4 (i )(2 )(B).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2 C E RT I FIC A T E OF S E RVIC E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2

xI N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S

C A S E S P A G E ( S ) A dam s v Wi l l iam s, 4 0 7 U .S . 1 4 3 (1 9 7 2).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 A m burg ey v S t a te, 6 96 N.E . 2 d 4 4 (Ind. 1 9 9 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 A nderson v S tat e, 9 32 S .W. 3 d 5 0 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 A pprendi v New Jersey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 ,8 8 ,8 9 ,9 0 ,9 3 A very v S t a t e, 3 5 9 S .W. 3 d 2 3 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Baze v Rees, 5 5 3 U .S . 3 5 (2 0 0 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Bl akel y v Washi ng t on, 5 42 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 ,9 0 ,9 1 ,9 2 ,9 3 ,9 4 Bot t v Bot t, 9 6 2 S .W. 2 d 6 2 6 (T ex . A pp. - - Houst on [1 4 t h D i st .] 1 99 7 , no pet .).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8 Boy c e v S t at e, No. 0 4 -0 4-0 0 2 6 7 -C R (T ex . A pp. - - S an A nt oni o, Jul y 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 ) 2 00 5 T ex . A pp. LE XIS 5 3 9 5 (m em . op.).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Brow n v S t at e, 9 7 4 S .W. 2 d 2 8 9 (T ex . A pp. - - S an A nt oni o 1 9 9 8 , pet . ref’d).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8 -1 9 Brow n v S t at e, 2 6 6 P. 4 7 6, 3 9 Okl a. C ri m . 4 0 6 xi(Okl a. C ri m . A pp. 1 9 2 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7

Burdi ne v S t at e, 7 1 9 S
. W. 2 d 3 0 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 By ers v S t at e, 7 0 9 N.E . 2 d 1 0 2 4 (Ind. 1 9 9 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 C al i forni a v Brow n, 4 7 9 U .S . 5 3 8 (1 9 8 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 C al i forni a v C unni ng ham , 1 2 7 S . C t . 8 5 6 (2 0 07 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 ,9 3 C ham berl ai n v S t at e , 9 9 8 S .W. 2 d 2 3 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ) c ert . deni ed, 5 2 8 U .S . 1 0 82 (2 0 0 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 -1 8 C ham bers v M i ssi ssi ppi , 4 1 0 U .S . 2 84 (1 9 7 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 C obarrubi o v S t at e, 6 7 5 S .W. 2 d 7 4 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 3 ) overrul ed i n part , Law renc e v S t at e, 7 0 0 S .W. 2 d 2 0 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 C ool i dg e v New Ham pshi re, 4 0 3 U .S . 4 4 3 (1 9 7 1 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 C orbet t v S t a t e, 7 6 4 N.E . 2 d 6 2 2 (Ind. 2 0 0 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 C raw ford v Washi ng t on, 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 (2 0 0 4 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 D avi s v S t at e, 2 6 8 S .W. 3 d 6 8 3 (T ex . A pp. - - Fort Wort h 2 0 0 8 , pet . ref’d).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5 D avi s v U ni t e d S t at es, 5 1 2 U .S . 4 5 2 (1 9 94 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 xi iD e La Paz v S tat e, 2 7 9 S .W. 3 d 3 3 6

(T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 D erden v M c Neel , 9 78 F. 2 d 1 4 5 3 (5 t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (en banc ) c ert . deni ed, 5 0 8 U .S . 9 6 0 (1 9 9 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9 D uhart v S t at e , 8 9 0 S .W. 2 d 1 8 7 (T ex . A pp. - - C orpus C hri st i 1 9 9 4 , no pet .).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 D unc an v Loui si ana, 3 9 1 U .S . 1 4 5 (1 9 6 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 E ddi ng s v Okl a h om a, 4 5 5 U .S . 1 0 4 (1 9 8 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 ,6 9 ,7 5 E dw ards v A ri zona, 4 5 1 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 8 1).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 ,5 2 E l l i ot t v S t a t e, 8 5 8 S .W. 2 d 4 7 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 E x part e T uc ker, 9 7 3 S .W. 2 d 9 5 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 E x part e Wel born, 7 85 S .W. 2 d 3 9 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8 Fet t erl y v Pasket t , 9 9 7 F. 2 d 1 2 95 (9 t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 Franc i s v Frankl i n, 4 7 1 U .S . 3 1 6 (1 9 8 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 ,7 1 Franc i s v S t at e, 9 2 2 S .W. 2 d 1 7 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Ful l er v S t at e, 8 2 9 S .W. 2 d 1 9 1 xi i i(T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 2 ) c ert .

deni ed, 5 0 8 U .S . 9 4 1 (1 9 9 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Furm a n v Georg i a , 4 08 U
. S . 2 3 8 (1 9 7 2).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 -8 7 Gam boa v S t at e , 2 9 6 S
. W. 3 d 5 7 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8 Garc i a v S t at e , 2 0 1 S .W. 2 d 5 7 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 4 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 Gi g l i obi anc o v S t at e, 2 1 0 S .W. 3 d 6 3 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Graham v Fl ori da, 5 6 0 U .S . 4 8 (2 0 1 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Green v S t at e , 8 99 S.W. 2 d 2 4 5 (T ex . A pp. - - S an A nt oni o 1 9 9 5 , no pet .).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9 Greg g v Georg i a , 4 2 8 U .S . 1 5 3 (1 9 7 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 Gut ierrez v S t a te, 2 21 S .W. 3 d 6 8 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 -3 4 Hei t m an v S tat e, 8 1 5 S .W. 2 d 6 8 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Hernandez v S t at e, 7 2 6 S .W. 2 d 5 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Hort on v C al i forni a, 4 9 6 U .S . 1 2 8 (1 9 9 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 ,3 7 In re Wi nshi p, 3 9 7 U .S . 3 5 8 (1 9 7 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 -8 9

xi vJac kson v Vi rg i n i a, 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 (1 9 7 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Ji menez v S t at e, 3 2 S .W. 2 d 2 3 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Johnson v S t at e, 3 6 4 S .W. 3 d 2 9 2 (T ex . C ri m . A ppl . 2 01 2) c ert . deni ed, 1 3 3 S . C t . 5 3 6 (2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Johnson v S t at e, 9 1 2 S .W. 2 d 2 2 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Jones v S t at e, 1 1 9 S .W. 3 d 7 6 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 3 ) c ert . deni ed, 5 4 2 U .S . 9 0 5 (2 0 0 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 Jones v S t at e, 8 3 3 S .W. 2 s 1 1 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 2 ) c ert . deni ed, 5 0 7 U .S . 9 2 1 (1 9 9 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1 K a nsas v M a rsh, 5 48 U .S . 1 6 3 (2 00 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 K a t z v U ni t ed S t a t es, 3 8 9 U .S . 3 4 7 (1 9 67 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 K e m per v S t at e, 1 38 S .W. 1 0 2 5 overrul ed i n part by Robert son v S tat e, 1 4 2 S .W. 5 33 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 1 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 K e nnedy v Loui si ana, 5 5 4 U .S . 4 0 7 (2 0 0 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 K ing v Federal U n derw ri t ers E x c hang e, 1 4 4 T ex . 5 3 1, 1 9 1 S .W. 2 d 1 1 1 2 (1 9 4 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7

xvK ing v S t at e, 9 5 3 S .W. 2 d 2 6 6

(T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 ,6 5 K lei n v S port i ng Goods, Inc ., 7 7 2 S .W. 2 d 1 7 3 (T ex . A pp. - - Houst on [1 4 t h D i st .] 1 9 8 9 , w ri t deni ed).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8 K ol b v S t at e, 5 3 2 S .W. 2 d 8 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 7 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 K ot t eakos v U ni t e d S t at es, 3 2 8 U .S . 7 5 0 (1 9 4 6 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 -6 6 Lang h am v S t at e, 3 05 S .W. 3 d 5 6 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Law renc e v S tat e, 7 0 0 S .W. 2 d 2 0 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 Loc ket t v Ohi o, 4 3 8 U .S . 5 8 6 (1 9 7 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 -7 0 ,7 5 Long v S t at e, 8 2 3 S .W. 2 d 2 5 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 1 ) c ert . deni ed, 5 0 5 U .S . 1 2 24 (1 9 9 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 M c Farl a ne v S t at e, 2 5 4 S .W. 2 d 1 36 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 5 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 M c Nei l v Wi sc onsi n , 5 01 U
. S . 1 7 1 (1 9 9 1).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 M al donado v S tat e, 5 28 S .W. 2 d 2 3 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 7 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 M ary l and v Bui e , 4 9 4 U .S . 3 2 5 (1 9 9 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 ,3 6 ,4 1

xviM assi a h v U ni ted S t at es, 3 77 U .S . 2 0 1 (1 96 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9

M ay berry v S tat e, 8 3 0 S .W. 2 d 1 76 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 M i l es v S t at e, 3 5 7 S .W. 3 d 6 29 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M i l l er v A l abam a, 5 67 U
. S . , 1 3 2 S . C t . 2 4 55 (2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 M i randa v A ri zona, 3 8 4 U .S
. 4 3 6 (1 96 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 ,5 7 M ont e j o v Loui si ana, 5 56 U
. S . 7 7 8 (2 0 0 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 -5 0 ,5 1 M ont gom ery v S t at e, 8 1 0 S .W. 2 d 3 7 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 ,6 3 ,6 5 M orri s v S t at e, 9 40 S
. W. 2 d 6 1 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Nash v S t at e , 4 77 S .W. 2 d 5 5 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp.) c ert . deni ed, 4 0 9 U .S . 8 8 7 (1 9 7 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 ,5 2 Narvai z v S t at e, 8 4 0 S .W. 2 d 4 1 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 2 ) c ert . deni ed, 5 0 7 U .S . 9 7 5 (1 9 9 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 O’Nei l l v S t at e, 6 8 1 S .W. 2 d 6 6 3 (T ex . A pp. - - Houst on [1 st D i st .] 1 9 8 4 , pet . ref’d).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Pay t on v New Y ork, 4 4 5 U .S . 5 7 3 (1 9 8 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4

xvi iPec i na v S t at e , 3 6 1 S .W. 3 d 6 8

(T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 ,5 5 Penry v Ly naug h, 4 9 2 U .S
. 3 02 (1 9 8 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 Perry v Jones, 5 0 6 F. 2 d 7 7 8 (5 t h C ir. 1 9 7 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 Perry v S t at e , 1 5 8 S .W. 3 d 4 3 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Pi t m an v Li g ht foot , 9 3 7 S
. W. 2 d 4 9 6 (T ex . A pp. - - S an A nt oni o 1 9 9 6 , w ri t deni ed).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8 Poi nt er v T ex as, 3 80 U
. S . 4 0 0 (1 9 65 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Pol k v S t at e, 2 2 4 P. 1 9 4 , 2 6 Okl a. C ri m . 2 8 3 (Okl a. C ri m . A pp. 1 9 2 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 Pow el l v A l abam a, 2 8 7 U .S . 4 5 (1 9 3 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 Ram i rez v S t at e , 8 1 5 S .W. 2 d 6 3 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Ranc e v S t at e, 8 1 5 S .W. 2 d 6 3 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Ray ford v S t at e, 1 25 S
. W. 3 d 5 2 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Reasor v S t at e , 1 2 S .W. 3 d 8 1 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 -3 6 Reese v S t at e, 3 3 S .W. 3 d 2 3 8 xvi i i(T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5

Renn v S t at e , 4 95 S .W. 2 d 9 2 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 7 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 Ri ng v A ri zona, 5 36 U .S . 5 8 4 (2 00 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 ,8 9 ,9 0 ,9 3 ,9 4 Ri t chi e v S t a t e, 6 3 2 P. 2 d 1 2 4 4 (Okl a. C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Rhodes v S t at e, 9 4 5 S
. W. 2 d 1 1 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. c e rt . deni ed, 5 5 2 U .S . 8 9 4 (1 9 9 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Robi n son v S t at e, 6 9 3 N.E . 2 d 5 4 8 (Ind. 1 9 9 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Runni ng w ol f v S t at e, 3 6 0 S .W. 3 d 4 9 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Russel l v S t a t e, 7 1 7 S .W. 2 d 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 S cal es v S t at e, 3 8 0 S
. W. 3 d 7 8 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 S cal es v S t at e, No. 0 1 -0 8 -0 93 2 -C R (T ex . A pp. - - Houst on [1 st D i st .] A pri l 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 ) (not desi g nat ed for publ i c at i on).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 ,7 3 ,7 4 ,7 5 S cal es v S t at e, No. 0 1 -0 8 -0 93 2 -C R (T ex . A pp. - - Houst on [1 st D i st .] D ec em ber 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) (not desi g nat ed for publ ic a t i on).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 xi xS im m ons v S out h C a rol i na, 5 1 2 U .S . 1 5 4 (1 99 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 ,7 1 ,7 5

S merke v Offi c e E qui pm e n t C o., 1 3 8 T ex . 2 3 6 1 5 8 S
. W. 2 d 3 0 2 (1 9 4 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 S mi t h v S t at e , 8 94 S.W. 2 d 8 7 6 (T ex . A pp. - - A m a ri l l o 1 9 9 5 , pet . ref’d).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9 S pazi ano v Fl ori da, 4 68 U
. S . 4 4 7 (1 9 8 4).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 S penc er v S t at e, 7 0 3 N.E . 2 d 1 0 5 3 (Ind. 1 9 9 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 S tahl v S t at e, 7 4 9 S .W. 2 d 8 2 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8 ,1 1 9 S tat e v D obbs, 3 23 S .W. 3 d 1 8 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 S tat e v Guzm an, 9 5 9 S .W. 2 d 6 3 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 S tat e v Jenni ng s, 9 5 8 S .W. 2 d 9 3 0 (T ex . A pp. - - A m a ri l l o 1 9 9 7 , no pet .).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 ,2 5 S tri c kl and v Washi ng ton, 4 6 6 U .S . 6 68 (1 9 8 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 S ul l ivan v S t at e, 5 6 4 S .W. 2 d 6 9 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 7 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 T ay l or v S t at e, 2 6 8 S
. W. 3 d 5 7 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5

xxT erry v S t at e, 4 91 S .W. 2 d 1 6 1

(T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 7 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 T ex a s v C obb, 5 3 2 U
. S . 1 6 2 (2 0 0 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 T hreadg il l v S tat e, 1 4 6 S .W. 3 d 6 5 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 T i pt on v S t at e, 2 3 5 P. 2 5 9 , 3 0 Okl a. C ri m . 5 6 (Okl a. C ri m . A pp. 1 9 2 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 U ni t ed S tat e s v Booker, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0, 1 2 5 S
. C t . 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 ,8 9 ,9 2 U ni t ed S tat e s v Henry , 4 4 7 U .S . 2 6 4 (1 9 8 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 U ni t ed S tat e s v M unoz, 1 50 F. 3 d 4 0 1 (5 t h C ir. 1 9 7 9 ) c ert . deni ed, 2 5 U .S . 1 1 1 2 (1 9 9 9 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 U ni t ed S tat e s v Wade, 3 8 8 U .S . 2 1 8 (1 9 6 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 Wal ter v U ni t ed S t a tes, 4 4 7 U .S . 6 4 9 (1 9 8 0 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 West v S t at e , 1 21 S .W. 3 d 9 5 (T ex . A pp. - - Fort Wort h 2 0 0 3 , pet . ref’d).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5 Whi te v S t a t e, 7 2 9 S .W. 2 d 7 3 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 8 7 ) di savow e d i n part , S t at e v D obbs, 3 2 3 S .W. 3 d 1 8 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 1 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 ,3 8 ,3 9 Wi l l i am s v S t a te, 9 58 S .W. 2 d 1 86 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 xxiWi l l over v S t at e, 7 0 S .W. 3 d 8 4 1

(T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5 Wong S un v U ni t e d S t at es, 3 7 1 U .S . 4 7 1 (1 9 6 3 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 ,5 5 Woods v S t at e , 1 5 2 S .W. 3 d 1 2 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Woods v S t at e , 9 5 6 S .W. 2 d 3 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 1 9 9 7 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Wy at t v S t a t e, 2 3 S .W. 3 d 1 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 Wy at t v Wol f, 3 2 4 P. 2 d 5 4 8 (Okl a. C ri m . A pp. 1 9 5 8 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 ,5 7 Zul iani v S t at e, 9 7 S .W. 3 d 5 8 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2 0 0 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 4

xxi iR U LE S , S T A T U T E S , C O N S T I T U T I O N S , L A W R E V I E W A R T I C L E S , A N D

A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O P I N I O N S Ind. Rul e E vi
. 4 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Peg g y M . T obol ow sky , “What Hat h Penry Wroug ht ?: M i t i gat ing C i rc um st anc es and t he T ex as D e a t h Penal t y , ” 1 9 A ME R. J. C RIM . L. 3 4 5 (1 9 92 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 P.M . M c C l ung , “Jury C harg es for T ex as C ri mi nal Prac t ic e (rev. ed. 1 9 8 1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 -8 4 T ex . C onst . art . I, § 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ,2 5 ,2 6 ,4 0 T ex . C onst . art . I, § 1 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 , 79 ,1 0 0 ,1 1 6 T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 1 .0 3 (Vernon 1 9 6 5 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 1 .0 6 (Vernon 1 9 6 5 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 1 5 .1 7 (Vernon 2 0 0 9 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 ,5 4 ,5 5 ,5 6 T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 1 8 .0 2 (Vernon 2 0 0 3 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 3 6 .2 9 (Vernon 2 0 0 9 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 3 7 .0 7 1 (Vernon 2 0 0 9 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xvi ,6 8 ,7 6 ,7 8 ,8 0 ,8 3 ,8 4 ,9 0 ,9 3 T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 3 8 .2 3 xxi i i(Vernon S upp. 2 0 04 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 ,3 9

T ex . C ri m . Proc . C ode A nn. art . 4 4 .2 9 (a) (Vernon S upp. 2 0 12 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 ,1 2 0 T ex . Op. A t t ’y Gen. GA -0 99 3 (2 0 1 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 T ex . Penal C ode A n n . sec . 1 9 .0 3 (a) (7 ) (A ) (Vernon 2 0 1 1 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x v T ex . R. A pp. Proc . 3 3
. 1 (a).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 T ex . R. A pp. Proc . 4 3
. 2 (d).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0 T ex . R. A pp. Proc . 4 4
. 2 (a).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 ,8 0 ,1 0 1 T ex . R. A pp. Proc . 4 4
. 2 (b).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 ,6 5 ,1 0 5 T ex . R. E vi
. 1 0 3 (a) (1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 T ex . R. E vi
. 4 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 ,6 2 T ex . R. E vi
. 8 0 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 4 T ex . R. E vi
. 8 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 4 U .S . C onst ., am end. IV.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 ,2 5 ,2 6 ,3 3 ,3 4 ,4 0 ,4 1 U .S . C onst ., am end. V.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 ,5 1 U .S . C onst ., am end. VI.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 ,5 0,5 1 ,5 5 ,8 1 ,8 9 ,9 3 , 9 9 ,1 00 ,1 1 6 ,1 1 9 U .S . C onst ., am end. VIII.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 ,8 7 U .S . C onst ., am end. XIV.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 ,2 6 ,4 0 ,8 0 ,8 3,8 9 , 93 ,1 0 0 ,1 1 9 xxi vS T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E

T he fol l ow i ng i s a c onc ise st at em e n t of t he nat ure of t h e case pursuant t o R u l e 3 8
. 1 (

d ) o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e : A ppel l ant , C E D R I C A L L E N R I C K S , w a s c harg ed by indi c tm e n t , ret urned on February 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 , 1 w i th the offense of c api t al m urder (t w o m urders duri ng t he

sam e c ri m i nal t ransac t i on). T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . s e c . 1 9
. 0 3 ( a ) (7 ) (A ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 1 1 )
. ( C R
. I
- 1 1

)
. On M ay 5 , 2 0 14 , A ppel lant pl e a ded not g ui l ty t o t he S t at e’s i ndi c t m e nt before a j ury . ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 6
- 1 7 )
. T w o day s l at e r, on M ay 7 , 2 0 1 4 , aft er heari ng evi denc e from bot h t he S t a t e and t he defense, the j ury found A ppel l ant g ui l t y of c api t al m urder as c harg e d i n t he S t at e’s i ndi c t m ent . ( C R
. I I
5 2 6
- 2 9 ; R R
. X

X X I I I
- 7 1
- 7 3 )
. Aft er heari ng addi t i onal test i m ony from w it nesses
c al led by bot h si des, t he j ury answ ered Spec i al I ssue Num ber One (t hat t here i s
a reasonabl e probabi l i t y t hat A ppel l a nt w oul d c om m i t c ri m i nal ac t s of vi ol enc e t h a t w oul d c onst i t ut e a c ont i nui ng t hreat t o soc i et y ) “y es” and Spec i al Issue Num ber T w o (w het her t here i s a suffi c i ent m it i g at i ng ci r c u m s t a n c e or
c i rc um st anc e s t o w arrant a sent e nc e of l i fe i m pri sonm ent ) “no.” ( C R
. II
- 5 2 7 ; R R
.

1 T hi s was a r e i nd i c t m e nt of cause number 1325203D whi ch was returned on Jul y 23, 2013. ( C R
. I
- 2 0 )
. xxvX

L
- 1 3 4
- 4 0 )
. C om m ens u r a t e w i t h t he jury ’ s answ ers t o t he t w o spec i a l i ssues,
on M ay 1 6 , 2 0 9 1 4 , t h e t ri al c ourt sent enc ed A ppel l ant t o deat h by l et hal i nj ec t i on. T

e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 § 2 (g ) ( V e r n on 2 0 0 9

)
. ( C R
. I I
5 2 6
- 2 9 ; R R
. X

L
- 1 3 6
- 3 7 ). On t hat sam e day , A ppel l ant fi l ed a not i c e of appeal ; how ever, hi s c onvi c ti on of c api t al m urde r a n d s e n t enc e of deat h w ere aut om at i c al l y appeal e d t o t he T ex as C ourt of C ri m i nal A ppeal s i n A ust i n, T ex as. ( C R
. I I
- 5 3 1

)
.

xxviC A U S E N O
. A P - 7 7 , 0 4 0

C E D R I C A LL E N R I C K S * I N T H E C O U R T O F * * V S
. * C R I M I N A L A P P E A LS * T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S * I N A U S T I N , T E X A S

A P P E L L A N T ’ S B R I E F

A p p e a l o f C a u s e N o . 1 3 6 1 0 0 4 R O u t o f t h e 3 7 1 s t J u d ic ia l D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f T a r r a n t C o u n t y , T e x a s T he H o n . M o l l e e W e s t f a l l , P r e s i d i n g

T O T H E H O N O R A B L E J U D G E S O F S A I D C O U R T : C O M E S N O W , C E D R I C A L L E N R I C K S , herei naft er referred t o as A ppel l a nt by a nd t hroug h hi s at t orney , M A R Y B
. T H O R N T O N , and respec t ful l y subm i t s hi s appel l at e bri ef spec i fy i n g t w ent y poi nt s of error pursuant to R u l e s 7 1 a n d 3 8 o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e .

xxvi iA P P E LL A N T ’ S P O IN T S O F E R R O R ( IS S U E S P R E S E N T E D )

P O I N T O F E R R O R O N E T HE T RIA L C OU RT E R RE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O H I S WA RRA NT L E S S A RRE S T WHIC H WA S I N V I O L A T I O N O F T H E F O U R T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( CR
. I

-2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 4 4
- 8 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ; X

L V
- D X 1 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R T W O T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN D E N Y I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O SU PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E S E IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O H I S WA RRA NT LE S S A RRE S T WHIC H WA S I N VIOLA T ION OF AR T

I C L E 1 , S E C T

I O N 9 O F T H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N A ND A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 6 , 1 8
. 0 2 , A N D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N

A L P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V I- 1 4 4
- 8 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ; X L V
- D X # 1 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R T H R E E

xxvi i iT HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN D E NY ING A PPE LLA NT ’S M O T ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E S E IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O T H E W A R R A N T L E S S S E A R C H O F H I S A PA RT M E NT WHIC H WA S IN VIOLA T ION O F T H E F O U R T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V I
- 7 4
- 1 1 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R F O U R T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D I N DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O T H E W A R R A N T L E S S S E A R C H O F H I S A PA RT M E NT WHIC H WA S IN VIOLA T ION O F A R T IC L E I , S E C T

I O N 9 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T I T U T I O N A N D A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 6 , 1 8
. 0 2 , AN D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T

H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R IM I N A L P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
4 0 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 7 4
- 1 1 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R F IV E T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT I O N T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E S E IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT OFFIC IA LS BE C A U SE A PPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O C OU NS E L I N VIOLA T ION OF T

H E F I F T H , S I X T H , A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E xxi xU N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( CR
. I

-2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
- S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R S I X T HE T RIA L C OU RT E R RE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT OFFIC IA LS BE C A U SE A PPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O CO U NS E L I N VIOLA T ION OF A R T

I C L E I , S E C T

I O N 1 0 O F T H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N A N D A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 5 , 1 5
. 1 7 , A N D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N

A L P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R S E V E N T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN D E N Y I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O SU PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E S E IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT OFFIC IA LS BE C A U SE A PPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O C OU NS E L I N VIOLA T ION OF O K L A H O M A S T A T U T E S 2 2
- 2 5 1 A N D 2 2
- 2 5 2
. (C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V I
1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
- S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R E I G H T T H E T R I A L C O U R T C O M M I T T E D RE VE RS IBLE E RROR IN ALL O W ING THE S T A T E T O INT ROD U C E S X2 2 5 A N A U T OPS Y

xxxPHOT O GRA PH OF JA M E S GONZA LE Z’S BRA IN BE C A U S E T HE PRE JU D IC IA L EFFE C T GRE A TLY OU T WE IGHE D A NY PROBA T IVE VA L U E
. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 1 1 3
- 1 6 ; X

L I V
- S X # 2 2 5 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R N I N E T H E T R I A L C O U R T C O M M I T T E D RE VE RS IBLE E RROR IN ALLOWING T HE S T A T E T O INT ROD U C E S X2 2 6 A N A U T OPS Y PHOT O GRA PH OF JA M E S GONZA LE Z’S BRA IN BE C A U S E T HE PRE JU D IC IA L EFFE C T GRE A TLY O U T WE IGHE D A NY PROBA T IVE VA L U E
. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 1 1 3
- 1 6 ; X

L I V
- S X # 2 2 6 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R T E N T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O DE C LA RE THE “1 0 -1 2 ” RU LE U NC ONS TIT U T IONA L ON THE G R O U N D S T H A T I T C R E A T E S A N IM PE RM I SS IBLE RIS K OF A RBIT RA RY IM POS IT ION OF T HE D E A T H PE NA LT Y
. ( C R
. I
- 1 8 7
- 2 1 7 ; R R
. V

- 7 9
- 8 0 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R E L E V E N A R T IC L E 3 7
. 0 7 1 O F T

H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N A L P R O C E D U R E I S U NC O NS TIT U T I ONA L BE C A U S E IT F A ILS T O P L A C E T HE BU RD E N OF PROOF ON T H E S T A T E R E G A R D I N G A G G R A V A T I N G E VID E NC E
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V
- 6 8 )
.

xxxiP O I N T O F E R R O R T W E L V E T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O PRE C L U D E THE IM POS IT ION O F T HE D E A T H PE NA LT Y ON GROU ND S T HA T T HE IND IC T M E NT F A ILE D T O C O N T A I N A N Y A L L E G A T I O N S RE GA RD ING T HE PU NIS HM E NT S PE C IA L IS S UE
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V
- 6 8 ). P O I N T O F E R R O R T H I R T E E N T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A P P E L L A N T ’ S O B J E C T I O N T O T H E A PPLIC AT ION OF T E XA S ’ D E A T H PE NA LT Y S C H E M E B E C A U S E I T H A S B E E N A RBIT RA RILY IM P OS E D IN VIOLA T ION O F T H E E I G H T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 7
- 5 0 ; R R
. V
- 6 8
- 6 9 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R F O U R T E E N T HE T E XA S D E A T H PE NA LT Y S T A TU TE VIOLA T E S T HE JU RY TRIA L GU A RA NT EE O F T H E F O U R T

E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

, A S INT E RPRE T E D IN A P P R E N D I V N E W J E R S E Y , R I N G V A R I

Z O N A , B L A K E L Y V W A S H I N G T O N , U N I T E D S T A T E S V B O O K E R , A ND C U N N I N G H

A M V C AL I F O R N I

A BY FA ILING T O PLA C E U PON T HE S T A T E THE B U R D E N O F P R O V I N G B E Y O N D A R E AS O N AB L E DO UB T A N E G ATI V E A N S W E R T O T HE M IT IGA T I ON S PE C IA L IS S U E
. ( C R
. I
xxxi i1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V
- 6 8 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R F I FT E E N A P P E L L A N T ’ S R IG H T S U N D E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U S E O F T

H E S I X T H A N D F O U R T

E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T

I T U T I O N WE RE V I O L A T E D W H E N T H E M O T H E R O F D E C E D E NT , ROS IE GONZA LE Z, T E S T IFIE D T O INFORM A T ION PE RT A INING T O A N E X T R A N E O U S OFFE NS E D U RING THE PU NIS HM E NT S T A GE OF HIS T RIA L. ( R R
. X X X I V
- 2 5
- 2 8 ; X

L
- 3 6
- 3 7 , 6 6

)
. P O IN T O F E R R O R S I X T E E N A P P E L L A N T ’ S R I G H T S U N D E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U S E O F A R T

I C L E 1 , § 1 0 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N WE RE V I O L A T E D W H E N T H E M O T H E R O F D E C E D E N T ROS IE GONZA LE Z T E S T IFIE D T O I N F O R M A T I O N P E R T A I N I N G T O A N E X T R ANE OU S OFFE NS E D U RING T H E PU NIS HM E NT S T A GE OF HIS T RIA L. ( R R
. X X X I V
- 2 5
- 2 8 ; X

L
- 3 6
- 3 7 , 6 6

)
. P O I N T O F E R R O R S E V E N T E E N RE VE RS IBLE E RROR OC CU RRE D WHE N T HE M OT HE R OF D E C E D E N T R O S IE GONZA L E Z T E S T IFIE D T O I NFORM A T I ON P E R TA INING T O A N E X TR AN E O U S O F F E N S E D U RING T HE PU NIS HM ENT S T A G E OF HIS T RIA L IN VIOLA T I O N OF T HE HE A RS A Y

xxxi i iRU LE
. ( R R
. X X X IV
- 2 5
- 2 8 ). P O I N T O F E R R O R E I G H T E E N T HE T RIA L COUR T AB US E D I TS D IS CRE T I ON A ND VIOLA T E D A PPE LLA NT ’S RIGHT S U ND E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U

S E O F T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T

I T U T I O N BY PE RM IT TING T HE S E XU A L A SS A U LT NU RS E E XA M I N E R T O T E ST IFY T O S T A T EM E NT S M A D E BY ROS IE GONZA LE Z RE GA RD I NG A N E XT RA NE OU S OF F E NS E A LLE GE D LY C OM M IT T E D BY A PPE L L AN T. (R R
. X X X V
- 1 1
- 2 0 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R N I N E T E E N TH E T R I A L C O U RT A BU S E D IT S D IS CRE T ION A ND VIOLA T E D A PPE LLA NT ’S RIGHT S U ND E R A R T

I C L E 1 , § 1 0 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T I T U T I O N B Y P E R M I T T I N G T H E S E XU A L A SS A U LT NU RS E E XA M INE R T O T ES T IFY T O S T A T EM E NT S M A D E BY ROS IE GONZA L E Z RE GA RD I NG A N E X T R A NE OU S OFFE NS E A LLE GE D LY C OM M I T T E D BY A PPE LLA NT
. (

R R
. X X X V
- 1 1
- 2 0 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R T W E N T Y IF NONE OF A PPE LLA NT ’S POINT S O F E RROR ARE RE VE RS IBLE P E R S E , THE N A L L O F T H E E R R O R S P R E S E N T C U M U L A T I V E E R R O R R E Q U I R I N G R E V E R S AL W H E N C O N S I DE R E D T O G E T H E R
. ( R e c o r d i n i t

s e n t i r e t y )
. xxxi vS T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S

T he fol l ow i ng i s a rec i t at i on of t he fac t s of the case present ed by t he S t at e of T ex as duri ng t h e gui l t /i n n oc enc e phase of A ppel l ant ’s tri al before a j ury pursuant t o R u l e 3 8
. 1 (f ) of t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e : A ppel l ant , C E D R I C A L L E N R I C K S , w as c onvi c t ed of t he c api t al m urder of hi s l i ve-i n g i rl fri end and her ei g ht -y ear-ol d son by a previ ous m arri ag e. T he offense oc c urred on M a y 1, 2 0 1 3 , i n Bedford, T arrant C ount y , T ex as duri ng t he

sam e c ri m i nal t ransac t i on. The l eg al suffi ci enc y of t he evi denc e t o support hi s
c onvi c t i on i s not c hal leng ed. T he fol l ow i ng fac t ual sum m at i on 2 i s an overvi ew of t he evi denc e adduc ed at A ppel l ant ’s t r i al
. S pec i fi c det ai l s c onc erni ng fac t s and t e st i m ony rel e v a n t t o a prospec t i ve poi nt of error w i l l be sum m a ri zed and di s c u s s e d i n t he A rg um ent and A ut hori t i es port i on as t hey rel at e t o t he l e g a l

c ont ent i on assert ed.

2 Th e evi dence wi l l be summari zed i n the proper standard of rev i ew f o r l egal suffi ci e ncy of the e vi dence questi ons whi ch i s “the l i ght most favorabl e to the verdi ct.” S ee , J a c ks o n v V i r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U .S
. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; J o h n s o n v S t a t e , 3 6 4 S
. W

. 3 d 2 9 2 , 2 9 3
- 9 4 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) c er t d e n i e d , 1 3 3 S
. C t
. 5 3 6 (2 0 1 2 ) ; R u n n i n g w o l f v S t a t e, 3 6 0 S
. W
. 3 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 4 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) ; A v e r y v S t a t e , 3 5 9 S
. W

. 3 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 6 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) ; M i l e s v S t a t e , 3 5 7 S
. W

. 3 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 1 ( Tex . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 1 )
. 1In M ay of 2 0 1 3 , t w el ve-y ear-ol d D am i en Gonzal ez 3 l i ved w i t h hi s m ot h er,

t h irt y -y e ar-ol d Rosi e Gonzal ez, 4 hi s brot her, ei g ht -y ear-ol d Jam es Gonzal ez, 5 hi s ha l f-brot her, ni ne-m ont h-ol d baby T hom as, 6 and hi s m ot her’s boy fri end and fat her of T hom as, A ppel l a n t . ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 1 ; X X X I I
- 1 6
- 2 0 ; X

L
- 6 6
- 6 9 )
. T he fi ve
m em bers of t he h ousehol d resi ded in an apart m ent com pl ex i n Bedford, T arrant C ount y , T e x a s . (

R R
. X X X I- 2 8
- 3 6 , 7 7 ; X

X X I I
- 1 8
- 1 9 )
. M a y 1 , 2 0 13 , daw ned as a t y p i c al day for t he Gonzal ez fam i l y and A ppel l ant . (R R
. X X X I I
- 2 0
- 2 4 )
. T h at eveni ng aft er w ork 7 Rosi e pi c ked up her t hree boy s and t ook t hem t o Wal -M a rt t o shop for g roc eri es. (

R R
. X X X I I
- 2 0
- 2 1 )
. D am i en and J am es hel ped t hei r m ot h er unl oad the g roc eri es and c arry t hem upst ai rs to t hei r a part m ent . ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 0
- 2 2 )
. Onc e insi de, D am i e n and Jam e s pl ay e d wi t h baby T h om as w hi l e Rosi e ret ri eved t he rem ai nder of t he bag s from her vehi c l e and t hen beg an prepari ng di nner. ( R R
. X X X II
- 2 2
- 2 4 )
.

3 D ami en Gonzal e z i s a pseudonym.
4 R osi e Gonzal ez i s a pseudonym.
5 J ames Gonzal ez i s a pseudonym.
6 T homas i s a pseudonym.
7 Both Rosi e and Appel l ant worked i n the medi cal fi el d for vari ous doctors. (R R
. XX

X I V -7 )
. 2M at t Webb al so resi ded at t he sam e apart ment c om pl ex on M ay 1 , 2 0 1 3
.

( R R
. X X X I
- 4 2
- 4 3 )
. He arri ved hom e at around 6:0 0 t hat eveni ng ; he l e ft about

a n hour l at er t o g o out t o di nner. ( R R
. X X X I
- 4 3
- 4 4 )
. A s he w al ked al ong the

c orr i d o r t ow ards hi s vehi c l e he heard a m an’s voi c e y el l i ng and sc ream i ng

ex pl et ives. (

R R
. X X X I- 4 4 ). A s he appr o a c h e d t h e m an he rec og ni zed hi s nei g hbor s R o s i e Gonzal e z and A ppel l ant . ( R R
. X X X I- 4 4
- 4 6 )
. Rosi e, w ho w a s
c arry i ng a c oupl e of bag s of groc eri es, appeared di st raug ht
. (R R
. X X X I
- 4 5 )
. A s he passed t hem , M r. Webb nodded and c ont i nued on hi s w ay . ( R R
. X X X I
- 4 5 ). Whi le a t d i n ner he rec ei ved num erous tex t s, voi c e m ai ls, and Fac ebook

m essag es about a dom est i c si t uat i on t h a t had rec ent l y t aken pl ac e near hi s apart m ent . (

R R
. X X X I- 4 6
- 4 7 )
. He l at er provi ded t he p ol i c e w i t h a st at em ent det ai l i ng w hat he had w i t nessed earl i er t h at eveni ng . ( R R
. X X X I
- 4 7 ). A round t hi s sam e t i m e D am i en and Jam es w ere havi n g a g r e a t t i me pl ay i ng i n t hei r shared bedroom w i t h baby Thom as. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 2
- 2 3 )
. Whi l e t he t wo ol der boy s t h rew a t enni s ba l l a r o u n d t hei r room t hei r mot h er w as i n t he ki t c hen prepari ng t hei r supper. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 3
- 2 4 )
. A t one poi nt Dam i en bec am e
aw are t hat A ppel l ant and hi s m ot her were eng a g ed i n a h eat e d verbal arg um ent . ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 4
- 2 5 )
. A s t he boy s c ont i n ued t hei r pl ay t hey heard t hei r m ot h er

3abrupt l y sc ream . ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 5 )
. Bot h boy s bol t e d from t hei r room t ow ards t he sound. ( R R
. X X X II
- 2 5
- 2 6 )
. D am i e n w at c hed as hi s m ot her and A ppel l ant w ere st ri k ing eac h ot her wi t h t hei r fi st s. ( R R
. X X X I I- 2 6 )
. S t unned, D am i e n observed A ppel l ant t hrow hi s mot her t o t he l ivi ng room fl oor. ( R R
. X X X II
- 2 7 )
. When D am i en and Jam es t ri ed to int ervene, A ppel l ant t hrew D am i en t o t he fl oor. 8 ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 7
- 2 8 )
. Whi l e bot h boy s beg g ed A ppel l ant t o st op, A ppel l a nt proc eeded t o st ri ke Rosi e m ul t i pl e t i m es w i th hi s fi st s. ( R R
. X X X I I- 2 7
- 2 8 )
. He t hen w al ked i nt o the ki t c hen and proc ured a kni fe from a ki t chen draw er. ( R R
. X X X I I- 2 8
- 2 9 ). Her sons w at c hed i n horror a s he w al ked bac k t o Rosi e and st abbed her m ul t i pl e t im es. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 9
- 3 1 )
. S he f u t i l el y at t em pt e d t o w ard off t he bl ow s. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 3 0
- 3 1 )
. S oon a ft er Appel l ant beg an h is at t ac k on hi s m ot her, D am i en ran bac k t o hi s room and hi d i n h is c loset
. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 3 1
- 3 2 )
. He at tem pt ed to di al 9 -1 -1 on hi s c el l phone w hi l e fi g ht i ng A ppel l ant ’s effort s to open the c l oset door. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 3 2
- 3 3 )
. When A ppel l ant fi nal l y w rest l ed t he door open D am i en dropped hi s phone and g rabbed t he kni fe t hat w as in A ppel l a nt ’s h and. (R R
. X X X I I- 3 3
- 3 4 ).

8 D ur i n g t h is ti m e D ami en was unsure what was h appeni ng to James. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 2 7 )
. 4Bl eedi ng profusel y from hi s l eft hand D am i en ran bac k i nt o t he l i vi ng room . ( R R
. X X X I I
- 3 4
- 3 5 )
. Jam es, hi s fac e c overed i n bl oo d , t o l d D am i en t o g et hel p. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 3 5 )
. A ppel l ant abrupt l y pushe d D am i en dow n , hel d hi s head t o t he fl oor, and beg a n s t a b bi ng hi m in t he bac k of hi s nec k and head. ( R R
. X X X I I- 3 6
- 3 7 ). D am i en w at c hed as A ppe l l a n t di d the sam e t o Jam e s. (R R
. X X X I I- 3 7
- 3 9 ). Ap pel l ant c eased hi s at t ac k and beg an w al ki ng around t he li vi ng room area. (R R
. X X X I I
- 3 9 )
. A ft er a few m i nut es D am i en tri ed t o st and. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 3 9 )
. A ppel l a nt

w al ked over a n d r e sum ed t he kni fe at t ac k. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 3 9
- 4 0 )
. When D am i en fei g n e d a g urg l i ng noi se, A ppel l ant ended t he assaul t . 9 (R R
. X X X I I- 4 0
- 4 1 ). Fei g ni ng deat h, D am i en l i st ened as A ppel l ant m oved about t he a part m ent . ( R R
. X X X I I
- 4 1
- 4 2 )
. A ppel l a nt t ook a show e r, c h ang ed hi s c l ot hes, m ade som e t e l ephone c al ls, pac ked a bag , and l eft , dri vi ng aw a y i n R o s i e’s gray Ni ssan aut om obi l e. (

R R
. X X X I I
- 4 2
- 4 7 )
.

9 D ami en testi fi ed that he had emul ated the same sound that James h ad made when Appel l ant was stabbi ng h i m. When James had gurgl ed i n hi s own bl ood because hi s b r e at hi ng was obstructed, Appel l ant had stopped s tabbi ng hi m. D ami en was hopi ng that Appel l ant woul d al so stop hi s attack on hi m. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 4 1 , 1 6 1
- 6 2 )
. 5C hi c ag o t ranspl ant and A ppel l ant ’s fi rst cousi n, 1 0 Jani ec e Tay l or, 1 1 t aug ht

i n t he A rl i ng t on Independe n t S c h o ol D i st ri c t at the t i me of her test i m ony . ( R R
. X X X I
- 5 8 )
. Her parent s, Jam es and Luc i nda Jones, 1 2 r e s i d e d i n M ansfi el d. ( R R
. X X X I
- 5 8 )
. Jani e c e and A ppel l ant g rew up t og et her i n sout h Chi c a g o. ( R R
. X X X I
5 9
- 6 0 )
. D uri ng t he earl y eveni n g hours of M ay 1 , 2 0 1 3 , J ani ec e w as at her parent s’ house i n M ansfi el d. 1 3 Her t el ephone rang . ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 3 )
. Rec og ni zi ng t he

num ber as A ppel l ant ’s she i ni t i al l y i g nored hi s c al l
. 1 4 (R R
. X X X I- 6 3
- 6 4 )
. When hi s c al l s persi st e d she rel ent ed and answ ered her phone. ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 4 )
. On t he ot her end A ppel l ant c ri ed, “I - - - I di d som et hi ng bad.” (R R
. X X X I
- 6 4 )
. J a ni ec e beg an to sob, and A ppel lant a sked t o speak t o hi s U nc l e J am es. ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 4 ).

1 0 Appel l ant’s mother and Jani ece’s father ar e s i s ter and brother. ( R R
. X X X I
- 5 9
- 6 0 )
. 1 1 Jani ece Tayl or i s a pseudonym.
1 2 James and Luci nda Jones are both pseudonyms.
1 3 Jani ece, her husband, her two sons, and her stepdaughter were l i vi ng wi th her parents temporari l y because she was i n the process of havi ng a home bui l t. ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 2
- 6 3 )
. 1 4 Jani ece expl ai ned t hat when Appel l ant c al l ed she di d not a nswer because of ti me constrai nts. She i ntended to r eturn hi s cal l at a l ater ti me when she had suffi ci ent ti m e to tal k wi th hi m. ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 3
- 6 4 )
. 6S h e handed t he phone t o her fat her and w at c h ed hi s fac e c ont ort i n shoc k and

di sm ay a s he l ist ened t o A ppel l ant . ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 4
- 6 6 )
. A ppel lant c onfessed t o hi s
unc l e that he had ki l l ed Rosi e and her tw o boy s. ( R R
. X X X I
- 7 7
- 7 8 )
. A ppel l a nt request ed t hat Jani ec e and her parent s d r i ve t o hi s apart m ent t o pi c k up baby T hom as. (

R R
. X X X I
- 6 8 , 7 8 ). When J ani e ce spoke w i t h A ppel l ant ag ai n she urg ed hi m t o t urn hi msel f i n t o t he pol i c e. ( R R
. X X X I- 6 8 ). When she h ung up from A ppel l ant a sec ond t i me, J ani ec e and her parent s g ot i nt o thei r c a r and beg an dri vi ng t ow ards A ppel l ant ’s apart m ent . ( R R
. X X X I
6 9 )
. Whi l e on t he w ay Jani ec e c al l ed 9 -1 -1
. ( R R
. X X X I
- 6 9 )
. A few m i nut es l at er
a Bedford pol i c e offi c er c ont ac t ed her and request ed t hat t he fam il y di vert t o t he Bedford Pol ic e D ep a r t m ent . ( R R
. X X X I- 6 9
- 7 0 )
. Onc e t here t he t hree fam i l y
m em bers provi ded t he a u t h ori t i es w i t h inform at i on enabl i n g t hem t o l oc at e A ppel l ant . (

R R
. X X X I
- 7 0
- 7 1 , 7 8
- 7 9 , 1 5 2
- 5 4 )
. Whi l e at t he pol i c e st at i on Jani ec e

w as rel i eved t o learn t hat Appel l ant had been taken i n t o c ust ody
. ( R R
. X X X I
- 7 1 ). Bedford pol i c e offi c er C l ay t on Bax l ey rec ei ved a di spat c h at 8 :4 2 p.m . on M ay 1 , 2 0 1 3 , orderi ng hi m t o p r o c e ed t o A ppel l ant ’s a part ment t o perform a

w el fare c hec k. (

R R
. X X X I- 8 5
- 8 8 )
. He w as t he fi rst responder on t he sc ene. ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 3 )
. When he approac hed t he front door of t he apart m ent he heard a baby 7sc ream ing i nsi de. ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 3 )
. A s t he offi c er w ai t ed for perm i ssi on t o ent er, he l e arned t hat D am i en had c ont ac ted the pol ic e . ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 3
- 9 4 , 1 1 0
- 1 3 ). D am i en had t ol d t he 9 -1 -1 operat or t hat h i s m ot her and brot her were dec eased, hi s i nfant brot her w as sc ream i ng , and Appel l ant had perpet rat e d t h e o ffense. ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 3
- 9 4 ). Wi t hi n mi n u t es Offi c er Bax l ey rec ei ved perm i ssi on to ent er t he apart m ent . ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 4 )
. Due t o t he i nj uri es t o hi s hands D am i en w as unabl e t o open t he front door and c a l l ed out for t he offi c er to ent er. ( R R
. V I
- 6 ; X X X I
- 9 4 )
. When Offi c er Bax l ey st e pped i n si de he obser v e d D a m i e n covered i n bl ood from hi s head t o h i s t oes. (

R R
. X X X I
- 9 5 )
. U pon c l oser inspec ti on he c oul d see severe l ac e rat i ons t o t he bac k of t h e c hi l d’s head, nec k, and shoul ders, a nd bl ood w a s fl ow i ng rapi dl y from hi s w ounds. ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 5
- 9 6 )
. T h e offi cer beg an t al ki ng t o D am i en w hi le w a it i n g for bac k u p a nd t he param edi c s. ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 6 )
. A ft er L i e u t e n a nt M eaders arri ved t he t w o beg an a “prot ec t i ve sw eep” of t h e a p a r t me n t for ot her vi c t i m s as w el l as A ppel l ant . ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 6
- 9 7 )
. D uri ng thei r searc h Offi c er Bax ley observe d R osi e’s and Jam es’ l i fel e ss bodi e s l y i ng on t he l i v i n g room fl oor. ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 7 )
. T hey t hen found baby T hom as i n a bac k room of t he apart m ent uni nj ured. ( R R
. X X X I
- 9 7 )
. Bac k out si de 8Offi c er Bax l ey h e l d t he fl ashl i g ht w hi l e t he param edi c s t ended t o D am i en’s

w ounds. (

R R
. X X X I
- 9 7
- 1 0 4 )
. Event ual l y Dam i en w as t ransport e d t o C ook C hi l dren’s Hospi tal for l i fe savi ng m edi c al t reat m ent . ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 0 4
- 0 6 )
. Heat h E
. Green w as a T rooper em pl oy ed by t he S t at e of Okl a hom a at t he t im e of hi s t est i m ony . (

R R
. X X X I
- 1 2 5 )
. On M a y 1 , 2 0 1 3 , T rooper Green and hi s
assoc i at e, T rac y L ax t on, w ere assi g ned t o pat rol t he sout hern end of O k l ahom a i n Garvi n a n d M urray c ount i es. ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 2 6
- 2 7 ). On t hat dat e t hey w ere

w orki ng t he “hoot ” or m idni g ht shi ft
. ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 2 7 ). Lat e r that ni g h t t he t roopers rec ei ve d a di spat c h t hat Rosi e Gonzal ez’s g ray Ni ssan was t ravel i ng al ong t he I-3 5 int erst at e and t h a t t he oc c upant of t he vehi c le w as w ant ed for quest i oni ng i n a st abbi ng i nc ident
. ( R R
. X X X I- 1 2 7
- 2 9 , 1 3 3 )
. The troopers w ere provi ded w it h Appel l ant ’s n a m e, t he c ol or of t h e vehi c l e, t he l i cense pl at e
num ber, and t he l oc at i on of A ppel l ant ’s c el l phone. ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 2 7
- 2 9 ). T roopers Green and Lax t on pul l ed out i n t hei r separat e vehi cl es a nd prom pt l y l oc at ed t he Ni ssan a t t he si xt y -ei g ht m i l e m arker on nort hbound I-3 5
. ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 2 7
- 3 1 ). A ppel l ant w as event ual l y pl ac ed under arrest
. ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 3 3
- 3 8 )
. Bac k at A ppel l a n t ’s apart m ent t he pol i c e i n vest i gat i on cont i nued. ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 8 2
- 2 5 3 , 2 8 4
- 3 0 5

)
. Vari ous searc h w arrant s w ere obt ai ned for t he

9apart m ent 1 5 , Rosi e’s c ar, a n d event ual l y A ppel l ant ’s D N A
. ( R R
. X L I I
- S P T X 1 , S P T X 2 , S P T X 7 , S P T X 9 , & S P T

X 1 0 )
. C ri m e sc ene offi c ers c areful l y c om bed t he

a p a rt m ent for e vi denc e . ( R R
. X X X I
- 1 8 2
- 2 5 5 , 2 8 4
- 3 0 7

)
. S everal kn i v e s
c ont ai ni ng b i o l o g i cal m at eri al w ere sei zed. ( R R
. X X X I
- 2 5 5 )
. T est i n g found t he D NA of D am i en, Rosi e, Jam es, and A ppel lant on v a r i o us i tem s, i nc l udi ng t he kni ves. ( R R
. X X X II I
- 1 1
- 2 4 )
. D r. T asha Greenberg , D eput y Medi c al Ex am i ner for t he T arrant C ount y D i st ri c t A t t orney ’s Offi c er perform e d t he aut opsi es on Rosi e and Jam es Gonzal ez. (

R R
. X X X I I- 1 0 9
- 1 1 )
. S he c onc l uded t hat Rosi e di ed of st ab w ounds of t h e n ec k, bl unt forc e i n juri es of t h e head, and asphy xi a a s a c om bi nat i on and t h a t her m anner of deat h w as a hom i c i de. ( R R
. X X X I I- 1 1 3
- 5 0

)
. Jam es di ed a s
a resul t of st a b wounds t o the head and nec k, and hi s m anner of deat h w as al so
a h om i c i de. (

R R
. X X X I I
- 1 5 1
- 7 7 )
. A ppel l ant w as e vent ual ly i n di c t ed for t he offense of c api t al m urder. ( C R
. I
- 1 1 )
.

1 5 Appel l ant chal l enges the Federal and State consti tuti onal i ty of thi s search i n poi nts of error three a nd four because i t was conducted h ours before the actual search warrant was obtai ned. 10S U M M A R Y O F A P P E LL A N T ’ S A R G U M E N T S

T he fol l ow i ng is a sum m ary of A ppel lant ’s poi nt s of error on appeal pursuant t o R u l e 3 8
. 1 (g ) o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f

A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e : P O IN T S O F E R R O R O N E A N D T W O : A t t he t i m e of A ppel lant ’s ac t ual st op by t he Okl ahom a st a t e troopers, A ppel l ant had c om m i t t ed no c ri m e, and the t roo pers di d not have probabl e
c ause t o arrest hi m . A ny evi denc e sei zed by l aw enforc em ent offi c i a l s subsequent t o A ppel lant ’s i l l eg al a rrest shoul d have been s u p pressed. T herefore, A pp el l ant ’ s M ot i on to Suppress shoul d h ave been g rant ed i n i t s ent i ret y . P O IN T S O F E R R O R T H R E E A N D F O U R : Law enforc em ent offi c i al s beg an searc hi ng A ppel l a nt ’s apart m e n t aft er t h e w el fare c hec k and ex i g e nt c i rc um st anc e s c eased t o ex i st . T hey proc eeded t o l oc at e and sei ze i tem s of evi de n c e i nsi de hi s apart m ent hours before t he

searc h w arrant w as proc ured i n v i o l a t i on of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n s and requi si t e T ex as st at ut es. P O IN T S O F E R R O R FI V E , S I X , A N D S E V E N : S h ort l y aft er A ppel l a nt ’s arrest he w a s t a ken before an O k l ahom a 11m ag i st rat e w ho a rrai g ned hi m on hi s f u g it i ve c ase (fi l e d as a resul t of

A ppel l ant ’s refusal t o w ai ve ex t radi t i on) and deni ed h i m c ounsel
. S u bsequent t o h is arrai g nm ent t he l oc a l sheri ff t hrew A ppel l ant int o a c el l w i t h ot h er pri s o n e r s w ho beat hi m severel y . A l m ost i m m edi at el y aft erw ards A ppel l a nt

w ai ved e x t radi t i on and ret urned t o T ex as. A ppel l ant ’s deni al of c ounsel vi ol at ed t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n s as w el l as t he O k l ahom a st at ut es. A s a resul t , hi s Mot i on to S uppress a ll evi denc e sei zed a ft er hi s unl a w ful deni a l of c ounsel shoul d have been g rant ed. P O IN T S O F E R R O R E I G H T A N D N I N E : T he prej udi c i al effec t of t he t w o aut opsy phot og raphs of Jam es Gonzal e z’s brai n out w ei g hed t hei r probat i ve val ue. A s a resul t , reversi bl e e rror resul t ed i n t h e i r adm i ssi on i nt o evi denc e before t he j ury . P O IN T O F E R R O R T E N : A ppel l ant w i l l arg ue t ha t T e x a s defendant s c h arg ed w i th c a pi t al m urder

are afforded lesser prot ec ti ons t han are requi red by t he C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and appl i ed t o non-deat h penal t y defendant s. P O IN T O F E R R O R E L E V E N : By requi ri n g t he j urors t o det e r m i n e w h et her t h ere are “suffi c i ent . . 12.m i t i g at i ng c i rc um st anc es,” t he sec ond spec i al i ssue i m pl i es t hat t he burden t o

prove t he m i t i g at i n g c i rc um st anc es of t he c a s e o u t w ei g h t he ag g ravat i ng

c i rc um st anc e s is on t he defense. T hi s r e n d e r s t he st at ut e unc onst it ut i onal under t h e E i g h t h a n d F

o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C on s t i t u t i o n . P O IN T O F E R R O R T W E L V E : A ppel l ant wi l l arg ue t hat absent a n al l eg at i on i n t he i ndi c t m ent as t o t he

ex ist enc e of t he spec i al i ssues and support i ng fac t s t he S tat e i nt ended t o offer i n support of t hose answ ers i t w as prec l uded from seeki ng t he deat h penal t y . P O IN T O F E R R O R T H I R T E E N : T he t hrust of t hi s poi nt i s t hat t he deat h penal t y proc edure i n T ex a s vi ol at es t he E i

g h t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . P O IN T O F E R R O R FO U R T E E N : T he Tex as deat h penal t y sc hem e vi ol at es t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t bec a u s e i t d oes not put t he burden of di sprovi ng t he

m i t i g at i on spec i al i ssue bey ond a reasonabl e doubt on the S t at e i n vi ol at i on of t h e pri n ci pl e s espoused i n A p p r e n d i v N e w J e r s e y , R i n g v A r i

z o n a , B l a k e l

y v W a s h i n g t o n , a n d C u n n i n g h a m v C a l i f o r n i a . P O IN T S O F E R R O R FI F T E E N , S I X T E E N , A N D S E V E N T E E N : 13Rosi e Gonzal ez’s m ot her w a s perm i t t e d t o t est i fy t o d a m m i ng and

prej udi c i al st at em ent s al l eg edl y made by Rosi e that aft e r the c om mi ssi on of an
ex traneous fam i l y vi ol enc e assaul t ag ai nst her A ppel l ant had pressured her i n t o
a rec onc i l i a t i on i n vi ol a ti on of t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d F e d e r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n s as w el l as t he hearsay rul e. P O IN T S O F E R R O R E I G H T E E N A N D N I N E T E E N : T he t ri al court com m i t t ed reversi bl e error by perm i t t i n g t he S ex ual A ssaul t Nurse E x am in e r t o t est i fy about al l eg e d st at em e n t s m ade by Rosi e Gonzal ez pert ai ni ng t o a n e x t r aneous assaul t al leg edl y c om m it t ed by A ppel lant ag ai nst her. T hese st at em ent s vi ol at ed A ppe l l a n t ’ s ri g ht s under t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e o f t h e F

e d e r a l a n d S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n s . P O IN T O F E R R O R T W E N T Y : If t hi s Court c onc l ude s t h a n n one of the above poi nt s of e rror c onst i t ut e harm , t hen A ppel l ant ’s c onvi c t i on and deat h sent enc e shoul d be reversed based on t he c um ul a t ive error i n t he rec ord.

14P O I N T O F E R R O R O N E T HE T R IA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A P P ELLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O H I S WA RRA NT L E S S A RRE S T WHIC H WA S I N V I O L A T I O N O F T H E F O U R T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I ON. ( CR
. I

- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 4 4
- 8 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ; X L V
- D X 1 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R T W O T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E S E IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O H I S WA RRA N T LE S S A RRE S T WHIC H WA S I N VIOLA T I ON OF A R T

I C L E 1 , S E C T

I O N 9 O F T H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N A ND A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 6 , 1 8
. 0 2 , A N D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N

A L P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V I
- 1 4 4
- 8 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ; X L V
- D X 1 )
. A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S

A
. T he Fac t s D uri ng t he heari ng on A ppel l ant ’s M ot i on t o S uppress al l of t he e vi denc e

15sei zed subsequent t o hi s w arrant l ess arrest , T rooper Lax t on, one of t he arrest i ng

offi c ers out of Okl ahom a, t est i fi ed on di rec t ex a m i nat i on as fol l ow s:

Q. Arou n d 10: 30 t h a t n i gh t , wh e r e w ere y ou l oc at ed? A
. M y sel f and Trooper Green w as at t he g as st at i on ri g ht off e x i t 5 5 on I3 5, w hi c h i s ri g ht on t he Garvi n/M urray Count y border. We had j ust w ent i n si de t o t ake a short break. Q. A t 2 2 5 8 hours, di d y ou hear a broadc ast over y our pol i c e radi o? A
. I di d hear t he broadc a st . L e t m e c hec k on t he t i mes. Y es.

* * * Q. What i nform at i on di d y ou rec ei ve over y our pol i c e radi o at t hat t i m e ? A
. T hi s i s ki nd of paraphrasi ng . I c an’t say it ex ac t l y , but basi c al l y t hat t here w as a vehi c l e - - a si l ver or g ray vehi cl e nort h bo u n d - - N i s s an A l ti m a n ort h bound on I3 5 , possi b l y had a dri ver i n i t nam ed C edri c R i c k s. T he vehi cl e had a T ex as tag of CP4 -M 8 2 9 , a n d t he suspec t - - or the person t hat w a s supposedl y dri vi n g t he vehi c l e w as w ant ed i n quest ioni ng f o r a

16st abbi ng t hat happened in Bedford, T e xas.

* * * Q. A nd w hat di d y ou and T ro o p er Green do at t hat t i m e? A
. W e i m m edi a t el y w ent t o our c ars. T he ori g i nal broadc ast , I bel i eve, w as j ust so u t h o f us. S o w e fi g ured, w it h the t i m e del ay , w e j u m p ed on t he i nt erst a t e and st art ed nort h, and w e j ust st a rt e d nort h t ry i n g to - - he w as i n hi s c ar; I w as i n m i ne. He w as j ust no m ore t h a n a few hundred y a rds i n front of m e . We w ere runni ng ki nd of t andem , runni ng n ort h on the i nt erst a t e t ry i n g t o l oc at e t hat vehi c l e.

* * * Q. A t som e poi nt , di d ei t her y ou or T rooper Green l oc at e t he vehi c l e? A
. Y es. Q. A nd w ho l oc at ed i t fi rst ? A
. T rooper Green saw t he vehi cl e fi rst . He rad i o ed bac k t o m e. I saw hi m hi t t i ng hi s brakes as he w as sl ow i ng dow n, and h e w as t el l ing m e t hat he j ust passed -
- or he j u st pul l ed up nex t to t he vehi c l e . I w a s - - I seen i t about t he sam e t i m e h e w as tal ki ng on t he radi o, but he saw i t j ust ri g ht before I di d. 17* * * Q. D i d ei t her y ou or T rooper G r e e n i m m e di at el y st op t he vehi c le at t hat t i m e ? A
. No. Q. What di d y ou do? A
. I radi oed bac k t o my di spat c h, w hi c h i s A rdm ore T r o o p F, t o ask - - or basi c al l y t o t el l t hem , “We’ve loc at ed the vehi c l e . D oes Bedford or do es - - Bedford PD , i s t h ey - - are t hey w ant i n g t h e vehi cl e st opped or - - w e’ve loc at ed, w h at do t hey w ant t o do? Q. S o i t wa s y o u r u n d e r s t andi ng a t t hat t i m e t hat y our di spat c her w as i n c ont ac t w i t h t hi s l aw enforc em ent ag enc y t hat w ant s t he vehi c l e st opped? A
. Y e s . I ’ m - - t he l eng th of t i m e from aski ng quest i ons t o get t i ng answ ers, I’m pret ty sure t hey w ere on t he phone w i t h s o m e body from Bedford, but I ’m not su r e w ho. Q. Okay
. A nd w hen y ou asked t hem t hat quest i on and t h ey t ol d y ou w hat t hey t ol d y ou, w hat di d y ou do? A
. T hey sai d, “Y es, s t op the vehi c l e .” A t t hat t i me, m y sel f and T rooper Green bot h t urned on our l i g ht s, al l of our

18em erg enc y l i g ht i ng at about the sam e t i m e. He w as ac t ua l l y - - ac t ual l y , w e w ai t ed j ust a few m ore sec o n d s. When t hey sai d, “Y es, st op t he vehi c l e ,” w e w ere c om in g up on a bri dg e w i t h g uardrai l. It ’s a crest of a hi l l
. It ’s ki nd of an unsafe spot t o pul l any body over. Ri g ht past t h i s bri dg e, t here’s no g uardrai l
. It opens up t o j ust g rass on bot h si des. S o w e w ai t ed a few sec onds. A s soon as w e c l eared the bri dg e, w e t urned on t he l i g ht s t o - - t o st art t he t raffi c st op. Q. How long w oul d y ou say y ou fol l ow e d t he vehi c l e at the t i m e y ou fi rst observed i t unt il t he t i m e y ou d e c i ded t o st op i t ? A
. A pprox i m at el y a m i l e, g i ve or t ake a l i t t l e bi t . I don’t - - a bout a m i l e. No m ore t han a m il e m ay be, hal f a m i l e. Q. A nd duri ng t h at ti m e, d i d y ou observe t he vehi c l e - - t he oc cupant of the vehi c l e m ake any t raffi c vi ol at i ons? A
. No. Q. Was t he vehi c l e speedi ng ? A
. No, i t w as not . Q. S o w hen you st opped the vehi c l e , y ou di d so a t t he di rec ti on of y our di spat c h e r, c orrec t ? 19A
. Y es. Q. W h o w a s s p e a k i n g t o aut hori ti es i n T ex as - - l aw enforc em e nt aut hori ti es i n T ex as, c orrec t? A
. Y es. Q. When y ou st opped t he vehi c l e -
- or ex c use m e. Let m e bac k up. When y ou t u r ned on y our overhead l i g ht s, what di d t he dri ver of t he vehi c l e do? A
. Im m edi at e l y pul led t o t he ri ght shoul der and st opped w it h t he l e f t ti res w i t hi n j ust a c oupl e of i nc hes o f t he w hi t e fog l i ne. ( R R
. V I
- 1 4 6
- 5 1 )
. How ever, on c ross-ex a mi nat i on t h e T rooper c onc e ded t hat at t he t i m e he

ac t ual l y c onduc t ed t he st op of A ppel l ant not onl y had A ppel l ant c om m i t t ed no t raffi c vi ol a ti ons of any ki nd, but al so he had no inform at i on t hat A ppel l ant had

c om m i t t ed any c ri m e i n any j uri sdi c t i on. T he rec ord refl e ct s:

Q. [BY D E FE NS E C O UNS E L] A nd, T rooper Lax t on, she’l l show y ou t hat i f y ou n e e d t o see i t , but i n T e xas, w e use t h e phrase “pro babl e c a use.” Y ou’re fam i l i ar w i t h t hat ? 20A
. Y es. Q. On t hose st at ut es, on arrest i ng som eone for a fel ony not i n y ou r vi ew , Okl ahom a c hose t o use “reaso nabl e c ause.” Y ’al l use t hat t erm a l ot , ri g ht ? A
. C orrec t .

* * * Q
. But here’s what I’m g et t i ng at . A nd m y quest i on i s not w h et her t hi s i s a n arr e s t o r det ai nm e nt . I ’m not t ry ing t o arg ue about w h at i s w hat
. I’m not t ry i ng t o arg ue w i t h y ou about w h at y ou di d. Okay ? But w h at I’m g et t i ng at i s: At t he t im e y ou c hose t o turn on y our red and bl ue l ig ht s t o i ni t i at e t he t raffi c st op, al l y ou knew w a s w hat y ou had been t ol d by y our di spat c her i n t w o di fferent c onversat i ons: One, M r. Ri c ks i s w ant ed for quest i oni ng in a st abbi ng i n Bedford, and t h e sec ond one w as a respons e , w hi c h was Bedford PD w oul d l ike hi m st opped, c orrec t ? A
. T hat ’s c orrec t .

* * * Q
. Wel l, di d y ou - - di d y ou feel l i ke y ou had reasonabl e c ause t hat t h e - - bec ause t h e s t a t ut e say s y ou can m ake a st op fo r a fel ony , okay , i f - - or y ou c an arrest a person for a fel ony , is w hat i t say s,

21i f y ou have reasonabl e c a use t hat a fel ony had been c om m i t t ed e ven i f i t w a sn’t i n y our vi ew . It ’s not ex ac t l y i n t hat order, but t hat ’ s w hat i t say s. A nd m y quest i on is: A t t hat poi nt i n t i m e, w h en y ou t urned on the red and bl ue l i g ht s, di d y ou bel i e ve t hat y ou had reasonabl e c a use t hat M r. Ri cks had c om mi t t ed a fel ony ? A
. C ou n sel , I don’t k now i f I’m overt hi nki ng t hi s. I m ean, bec au s e t here w as m ore - - t here w as m ore quest i ons asked and answ ered t o g et t o t h e a rre st poi nt of i t . Q. I underst and t hat when y ou fi nal ly sai d, “Y ou’re under arrest , ” t hat w as b a s ed on ot her c onversat i ons. I’m no t t ry i n g t o arg ue about t hat
. M y quest i on i s: A t t he t i m e y ou st opped hi m, y ou obvi ousl y di dn’t know a l l t he conversat i ons w i th D et ec ti ve M oody and t he ot her pe o p l e. I’m j ust tal ki ng about w hen t hey sai d, “Pul l t hi s c a r over.” A
. T he i n form at i on that I had - - I’m g oi ng t o t ry t o answ er t hi s as best I can, i f I underst and y ou ri g ht
. T h e i nform at i on I had when I t urned m y l i g ht s on w a s n o t enoug h - - t hat j ust a t i t s ow n w as not e n o ug h for m e t o go t h roug h t he w ho l e ent i re st op, pl ac e Mr. Ri c ks u nder arrest , t ake hi m t o j ai l , al l t he above.

22Q. Y ou had t o g ai n i n form at i on aft er y ou st opped hi m ? A
. Y es. Is t hat w hat y ou’re answ eri ng

- - Q. E x ac t l y . A
. - - or aski ng , si r? Y es.

(R R
. V I
- 1 8 3
- 8 6 )
. T he t ri al c ourt g rant ed A ppel l ant ’s Mot i on t o S uppress al l of t he evi denc e sei zed subsequent t o hi s w arrant l ess arrest as t o a few i t em s unc overed by l aw enforc em ent duri ng t hei r, A ppel l a nt l at er c ont ends unl aw ful searc h, of A ppel l a n t ’ s apart m ent pri or t o t hei r proc urem e n t of a w arrant . In al l ot h er
m at t ers A ppel l ant ’ s M o t i o n t o S uppress w as deni ed. ( C R
. I I
- 4 0 9 ). D efense

c ounsel obj ec t ed to t he a dm i ssi on of al l of t he ot her i t em s of evi denc e sei zed subsequent t o A ppel l a nt ’s arrest and request e d a runni ng obj ec t i on t o al l suc h evi denc e. (R R
. X

X X I I- 7 1 )
. B. T he Law U nder t he Federal and T ex as C onst i t ut i ons A n i nvest i g at i ve det ent i on i s a sei zure. F r a n c i s v S t a t e , 9 2 2 S
. W

. 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6

); J o h n s o n v S t a t e , 9 1 2 S
. W
. 2 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 5 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 5

)
. A s a resul t , i t must be reasonabl e t o m eet t he st andards requi red 23by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n s . S e e , U
. S
. C o n s t
. a m e n d
. I V a n d X IV as w el l as T

e x . C o n s t
. a r t
. I § 9
. A n oc c u p a nt of an aut om obi l e i s j ust a s subj ec t t o a bri ef det ent i on a s i s a pedest ri an. A d a m s v W i l l i a m s , 4 0 7 U
. S
. 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; R h od e s v S t a t e , 9 4 5 S
. W
. 2 d 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 ( T

e x . C r i m . Ap p . ) c e r t d e n i e d , 5 5 2 U
. S
. 8 9 4 ( 1 9 9 7 )
. T he reasonabl eness of a t em porary det ent i on
m ust be ex am ined i n t erm s of t he t ot al i t y of the c i rc um st anc es and w i l l be j ust i fi ed w hen t he det ai ni n g offi c e r has spec i fi c a rt ic ul abl e fac t s, whi c h t aken t og et her w i t h rat i onal i nferenc es from t hose fac t s, l ead hi m t o c onc l ude t hat t he person det ai ned ac t ual l y i s, has been, o r soon wi l l be eng a g ed i n c ri m i nal

ac t i vi t y. W

o od s v S t a t e , 9 5 6 S
. W

. 2 d 3 3 , 3 8
- 3 9 ( T

e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7

)
. In S t a t e v J e n n i n g

s , 9 5 8 S
. W

. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 2 ( T

e x . Ap p . - - A m a r i l l o 1 9 9 7 ,
n o p e t
. ) a peac e offi c er w as di spat c h ed t o a dom est i c di st urbanc e i n t he C i ty of Pl ai nvi ew . 9 5 8 S
. W

. 2 d a t 9 3 2
. E n rout e t o t he dom est i c di st urbanc e c al l , she

rec ei ved a di spat c h over her pol ic e radi o desc ri bi ng a vehi c l e t hat was w ant ed for quest i oni ng i n reg ards t o t he dom e st i c di st urbanc e. Id
. T he off i c e r l oc at ed and st opped t he vehi c l e t h a t m a t c hed the broadc ast based sol el y on t he fac t t h a t t he dri ver o f t h e vehi c l e w as w ant ed for quest i oni n g i n reg ards t o t he dom est ic di st urbanc e. I d
. O n appeal , t he C ourt of A ppeal s found t hat “t he t ot al i t y 24of t he c i rc um st anc es evi n ce onl y a request t o st op coupl e d w i t h a desc ri pt i on of

t h e vehi c l e t o be st opped,” and t hat “t hese ci rc um st anc es al one are not enoug h t o i l l ust rat e t h a t t he i ni t i al det ent i on was j ust i fi e d on t he basi s of reasonabl e suspi c i on or probabl e c ause.” I d a t 9 3 3 , (c i t i ng R a n c e v S t a t e , 8 1 5 S
. W
. 2 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 5 n . 2 ( T

e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1

) )
. A r t
. I, § 9 o f t h e T

e x . C o n s t
. provi des: “T he peopl e shal l be sec ure i n t hei r persons, houses, papers and possessi ons, from al l unreasonabl e sei zures or
searc hes, and no w a r r a n t t o searc h any pl ac e, or t o sei ze any person or t hi ng , shal l i ssue w i t hout desc ri bi ng t hem as near as m ay be, n or w i t ho u t p r o b abl e
c ause, support ed by oat h or affi rm at i on.” Pursuant t o H e i t m a n v S t a t e , 8 1 5 S
. W
. 2 d 6 8 1 , 6 9 0 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1

) t hi s C ourt , when anal yzi ng and i nt erpret i ng a r t
. I , § 9 o f t h e T e x . C o n s t
. , w i l l not be bound by S uprem e C ourt dec i si ons addressi ng t he c om parabl e F ou r t h A m e n d m e n t i ssue. T h e T e x. C o n s t
. affords g reat er i ndi vi dual prot ec t i ons t o i t s c i t i zens i n searc h and sei zure c ases t h a n t h e F

o u r t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U
. S
. C o n s t
. S e e a l s o , a r t s . 1
. 0 6 , 1 8
. 0 2 , a n d 3 8
. 2 3 T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . ( V e r n o n 1 9 6 5 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d V e r n on S u p p . 2 0 0 4 )
. In t he c ase at bar, w hen t he T rooper t urned on hi s l i g ht s and si rens t o 25i ni t i a te hi s t raffi c s t o p o f A ppel l ant he adm i t t ed t hat he lac ked reasonabl e

suspi c i on and probabl e cause t o bel i eve that A ppel l a nt had c om m i t t ed any ty pe of c ri m e i n any j uri sdi c t i on. ( R R
. V I
- 1 8 5
- 8 6 )
. A s a resul t A ppel l a nt ’ s ri g ht s under t h e F o u r t h a n d F

o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , a r t
. I § 9 o f t h e T

e x . C o n s t
. , and t hose under t he enum erat ed s t a t e s t a t ut es w ere vi ol at ed, and the t ri al c ourt erred by deny i ng A ppel l ant ’s M ot ion t o Suppress al l of t he evi denc e sei zed subsequent t o hi s unl aw ful arrest . T hi s error i s subj ec t t o harm l e ss error revi ew . A ppel l ant c ont ends t hat t hi s C o urt must reverse t he t ri a l c ourt ’s j udg ment of g ui lt unl ess t h i s C o u r t det erm i nes bey on d a r e asonabl e doubt t hat t he error di d not c ont ri but e t o A ppel l ant ’s convi c t i on. A ppel l a n t bel i eves t h at t he S t a t e’s adm i ssi on of t he i nst rum ent s of t he c ri me as w el l as al l of t he ot her num erous i t em s of e vi denc e t h a t w ere sei zed as a resul t of t he vari ous searc h w arrant s c ont ri but ed t o t he j ury ’s verdi c t of g ui lt ag ai n st hi m . Bec ause of t hi s A ppel l a nt respec tful l y pray s t h a t t hi s Honorabl e C ourt s u s t a i n poi nt s of error one and t w o, reverse t he Judg m e nt of t he t ri al c ourt , and rem and hi s c ase for a new t ri al
.

26P O I N T O F E R R O R T H R E E T HE T R IA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A P P ELLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O T H E W A R R A N T L E S S S E A R C H O F H I S A PA RT M E NT WHIC H WA S IN VIOLA T ION O F T H E F O U R T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( C R
. I- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
- 4 0 9 ; R R
. V I
- 7 4
- 1 1 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R F O U R T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN D E NY I NG A PPE LLA N T ’ S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT O F F I C I A L S S U B S E Q U E N T T O T H E W A R R A N T L E S S S E A R C H O F H I S A PA RT M E NT WHIC H WA S IN VIOLA T ION O F A R T IC L E I , S E C T

I O N 9 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T I T U T I O N A N D A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 6 , 1 8
. 0 2 , AN D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T

H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N A L P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; I I
4 0 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 7 4
- 1 1 7 , 2 3 1
- 4 1 ; X

X X I I
- 7 1 ; X L I I
- S P T X 1 )
. A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S

A
. T he Fac t s Bedford D et ec ti ve, Joey Gaug e r, t est i fi ed at t he hea r i n g o n Appel l ant ’s M ot i on t o S uppress t ha t w h e n t he respondi ng offi cers ini t i a l l y ent ered t he 27a p art m ent duri ng t he eveni ng hours of May 1 , 2 0 1 3 , to provi de m edi c a l

assi st anc e t o D a mi e n, t o resc ue baby Thom as, and to c hec k for survi vors of t he at tac k t hey had observed vari ous i t em s of evi denc e t h at w oul d event ual l y need t o be c ol l ec t ed. (

R R
. V I- 8 3
- 8 4 )
. On d i r e c t e x am i nat i on D e tec ti ve Gaug er t hen desc ri bed ent e r i n g A ppel lant ’s apart m e n t a ft er bot h t he ex i g ent and w el fare

c hec k c i rc um st anc es had offi c i al l y t erm i nat ed and before a w arrant t o searc h t h e prem i ses h a d been proc ured. T he rec ord st a t es in pert i nent part as fol l ow s: Q. A nd had y ou l earned, at l east upon a rri val or en rout e, t hat c ert ai n i t em s of e v i d enc e had been di sc overed by the i ni t i al respondi ng offi c ers? A
. Onc e I arri ve d on t he sc ene and

- - a n d had t hat conversat ion w i t h C ri m e S c ene T ec hni c i an Gr i ce , I l e arned t hat t here w as evi denc e t hat had been observed by t he i ni t i al respondi ng offi c ers. Q. A nd do y ou rec al l w h a t t i m e y ou ent ered i nt o t he apart m ent , t he c ri m e sc ene? A
. I don’t - - I don’t rec al l t he ex ac t t i m e, but I do bel i eve i t w a s a round 1 1 :1 8 p.m . Q. Okay
. A n d when y ou ent ered t he apart m ent , w hat di d y ou do?

28A
. I beg an t o a ssi st C ri m e S c ene Gri c e w i t h t aki ng not es prospec t i ve to the evi denc e t hat w as c ol l ec t ed. Q. W a s s h e a l s o t a k i n g phot og raphs? A
. Y es, she w as. Q. Whi l e y ou were i n t he c ri m e sc ene, di d personne l from t he T arrant C ount y M edi c al Ex am i ner’s Offi c e arri ve i nsi de t he apart m ent ? A
. Y es, t hey d i d. C onsi derabl e t i m e aft er I had been in t he apart m ent , t hey di d arri ve. Q. D o y ou rec al l w h at t i me i t was? A
. I bel i eve at 3 :3 8 a . m . on the 2 n d of M a y. Q. A nd w hy di d t hey c o m e to the sc ene? A
. T hey - - t hey arri ved on sc ene t o t ransport - - have t he bodi es t r ansport ed from t he sc ene t o t he M E ’s offi c e. Q. Whi l e y ou w ere out there, di d y ou hear a n i nvest i g at or for t he T arrant C ount y M edi c a l E x a m i ner’s Offi c e m a ke any com m ent s reg ardi n g pot e n t i a l m urder w eapons? 29A
. Y es, he di d. Q. What happened? A
. He - - he - -he t ol d m e t hat he - - or he sum m oned me and sai d, “Hey , I found a kni fe i n t h e s e c ond draw er of the ki t c hen, a n d t here’s som e bl ood on the kni fe.” I sai d, “Okay .” A n d I w ent over t here, and I l ooked. T he draw e r w as c rac ked open about t w o and a h al f i nc hes, and y ou c oul d see a kni fe i n t he draw er t hat had bl ood on i t . Q. O k a y . A n d i t ’ s y o u r underst andi ng t hat the draw er w as a l ready o p e n w h e n t h e m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r i nvest i g a t or observed t he bl oody kni fe; i s t hat c orrec t ? A
. Y es, i t w as. Q. A nd w hat d i d y ou do at t hat t i m e? A
. A t t hat t i m e, I not ifi ed C ri m e S c ene T ec h ni c i an Gri ce of t he kni fe so she c oul d doc um ent and c o l l ec t the kni fe and t ake phot og raphs of i t . Q. A nd di d t he m edi cal ex am i ner i nvest ig at or - - d i d h e c ont i n ue hi s dut i es and event ual l y c om pl et e t hose dut i es? A
. Y es, he di d.

30Q. What di d y ou do nex t ? A
. A ft er he fi ni shed hi s dut i es, t hen I ex i t ed the c ri m e sc ene . T h ere w as one poi nt in t he c ri m e sc ene I di d t ake a vi deo of t he c ri m e sc e ne. Q. Do y o u know w hat t i m e you l eft t he c ri m e sc ene?

* * * A
. I l eft at - - from t h e c ri m e sc ene l og , I l eft t he c ri m e sc ene at 1 :2 2 a.m . and ret urned at 1 :4 5 a.m . on M ay 2 nd. Q. Okay
. But y ou l e ft t he c ri m e sc ene aft e r t he m edi c al ex am i ner’s of f i c e l eft ; i s t h a t c orrec t ? A
. Y es, I di d. I left ri g h t at about t he sam e t i m e , w hi c h w as at 4 : 3 8 a.m . on M ay 2 nd. Q. S o y ou - - w h en y ou ori g i nal l y l eft t he sc ene, y ou l eft t o ret ri eve som e i t em s, c orrec t ? A
. Y es. I l eft t he sc e ne t o ret ri eve t h e - - t h e pol i ce depart m ent c ri m e sc e n e vi deo c am era. Q. Okay
. Then y ou ret urned, c om p l e t e d y our vi deo, and t hen y ou l eft short l y aft er t he m e di c al ex a m i ner’s offi c e

31l eft ; i s t h a t c orrec t ? A
. T hat ’s c orrec t . Q. D i d y ou ev e r g o bac k t o the c ri m e sc ene aft er t hat ? A
. No, I di d not
. Q. O k a y . D e t e c t i v e , y o u m ent i oned Offi c er Gri c e ; i s t hat c orrec t ? A
. C ri m e S c ene T ec hni ci an Gri ce. Q. I’m sorry . Cri m e S c ene T e c hni c ian Gri c e.

A nd t he evi denc e and i t em s t hat she w as phot og raphi ng , doc um ent i ng , t hose are t he i t em s t hat had been seen by t he r espondi ng offi c ers and had been i n pl ai n vi e w ; i s t h at c orrec t ? A
. T hat i s c orrec t . (

R R
. V I
- 8 3
- 8 7 ). T he S t at e di d n ot obt a in t h e e vi dent i a ry searc h warrant for Appel l ant ’s apart m ent unt i l 1 0 :1 3 a.m . on M ay 2 , 2 01 3
. ( R R
. X L I I
- S P T X 1 )
. A ppel l ant has preserved t hi s error for appel l at e revi ew by fi l i ng a pret ri a l M o t i o n t o S uppress and obt ai ni ng a rul i ng on t hat M ot i on from t he t ri al c ourt .
32( C R
. I I
- 4 0 9

)
. S e e , T e x . R
. A p p . P r o c . 3 3
. 1 (

a ); T e x . R
. E v i
. 1 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 )
. T houg h n ot

nec essary for preservat ion, A ppel l a nt obj ec ted, i n front of t he j u r y , t o t he adm i ssi on of al l it em s of evi denc e se i z e d p r i o r t o t he Bedford Pol i ce D epart m ent ’s obt ai nm ent of a searc h w arrant . ( R R
. X X X I I
- 7 1 ). B. T he Law U nder t he Federal and T ex as C onst i t ut i ons “T h e ri g ht of t he peopl e t o be sec ure i n t hei r persons, houses, papers, and effec ts, ag ai nst unreasonabl e searc h e s and sei zures, shal l not be vi ol at ed.
. .” U
. S
. C o n s t
. A m e n d
. I V

. Searc hes c o nduc ted w i thout a w a rrant are per se unreasonabl e under t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

, subj ec t onl y to a few s p e c i f i c a l l y est abl i shed and w el l del i n e a t e d ex c ept i ons. K a t z v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 9 U
. S
. 3 4 7 , 3 5 7 ( 1 9 6 7

) (foot not es and c i t at i ons om i t t e d )
. “T he fi ve basi c ex c ept i ons a re: (1 ) c onsent , (2 ) i nc ident t o a l a w ful arrest , (3 ) w i t h probabl e c ause t o searc h but

w i t h ex i g ent c i rc um st a n c e s , ( 4 ) i n hot pursui t , and (5 ) st op and fri sk.” K o l b v S t a t e , 5 3 2 S
. W

. 2 d 8 7 , 8 9 n . 1 ( T

e x . C r i m . Ap p . 1 9 7 6

)
. Onc e a defendant show s t h a t a searc h or sei zure or sei zure oc c urred w i t h out a w arrant , t he burden shi ft s t o the S t at e to prove t h e r e a sonabl eness of t he searc h or sei zure. R u s s e l l v S t a t e , 7 1 7 S
. W

. 2 d 7 , 9 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6

)
. A w a rrant l e ss searc h of a resi denc e i s presum pt i vel y unreasonabl e. G u t i e r r e z v S t a t e , 2 2 1 S
. W

. 3 d 6 8 0 , 336 8 5 ( T

e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7

) (c i t i ng P a y t o n v N e w Y or k , 4 4 5 U
. S
. 5 7 3 , 5 8 6 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ). T o h ol d a w arrant l ess searc h val i d, a revi ew i ng c ourt m ust m ake t hree fi n di ng s: ( 1 ) t hat t he searc h w as support ed by prob a bl e c ause, t he t hreshol d requi rem ent of any val id searc h; (2 ) t hat t he fai l ure t o obt ai n a searc h w arrant

w as e x c usabl e bec ause t he searc h w as i nc ident t o a l aw ful a rrest or w as j ust i fi ed by som e o t her ex i g ent ci rc um st anc e furni shi ng an ex c ept i on t o t he w arrant requi rem en t ; a nd (3 ) t hat t h e sc ope of t he searc h w a s c onsi st e n t w i t h i t s purpose. M a l d o n a d o v S t a t e , 5 2 8 S
. W
. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 9 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 5

)

o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , S t a t e v G u z m a n , 9 5 9 S
. W
. 2 d 6 3 2 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8

); S u l l i v a n v S t a t e , 5 6 4 S
. W

. 2 d 6 9 8 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 7

)
. A s
ex pl ai n ed herei n, t he rec ord i n t hi s c ase does not support a fi ndi ng of t he sec ond or t hi rd c ri t eri a. Here, t he searc h of A ppel l ant ’ s a p art m ent was c onduc t e d w i t hout a

w arrant . A t t he heari ng on A ppel lant ’s Mot i on t o S uppress, t he S t at e arg ued (i nt er a l i a ) t hat (a) w hen t he pol i c e fi rst arri ved at Appel l ant ’s apart m ent , “t hey had t he ri g ht t o g o i nt o that apart m ent t o make a w el fare c h ec k,” (b) t hei r “searc h” of t he apart m ent w as “a prot ec t i ve sw e e p of t hat apart m ent ;” and (c ) t h e evi denc e t hey sei zed “w as i n pl ai n vi ew .” ( R R
. V I
- 2 4 2
- 4 3 )
. 34A ppel l ant does not cont est t hat t he law e n forc em ent offi c e rs’ ini t i al ent ry

i nt o hi s a p a r t m e n t w as l eg al
. How ever, t he sc ope of t hei r subsequent searc h of hi s apart m ent ex c eeded t h e l eg al j ust i fi c at ion for t hei r ent ry i nt o (and presenc e i n ) t h e a part ment . Fi rst , t he ex i g ent c i rc um st anc es onl y al l ow ed t he pol ic e t o en t er Appel l ant ’s a part m ent . S uc h ex ig enc y di d not m ake t he ensui ng

w arrant l es s searc h of t he apart m ent l eg a l
. S e cond, t he w arrant l ess searc h of A ppel l ant ’s apart m e nt w as not “a prot ec t i ve sw eep.” A “prot ec ti ve sw eep” i s a qui c k and l i mi t e d searc h of a prem i ses, i nc i dent t o an arrest and c onduc t ed t o prot ec t t he safet y of pol ic e o f f i c e r s o r ot hers. M a r yl a n d v B u i e , 4 9 4 U
. S
. 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 ( 1 9 9 0

)
. T h e searc h of A ppel l ant ’s apart m ent w as not c onduc t ed i nc i dent t o any arrest . Assum i ng a r guen do t hat t hi s Court dec i des t o ex p a n d t he defi ni t ion of a “prot ec t i ve sw eep” t o inc l ude t he t y pe of searc h a t i ssue here, t hi s
searc h w ent bey ond w hat t he S uprem e C ourt sai d t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t w oul d perm i t . U nder B u i e , a prot ec t i ve sw eep i s perm i tt ed by t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i f the searc hi ng offi c e r possess e s a reasonabl e bel i ef based on spec i fi c and art i c ul abl e fac t s t hat , t ake n t og et her w it h t he rat i onal i n ferenc e s from t hose fac t s, reasonabl y warrant t he offi c er i n bel ievi ng t hat t he area sw e pt harbored

an i ndi vi dual posi ng a dang er t o t he offi c e r or ot hers. I d
. T hus, i n R e a s o r v S t a t e , 351 2 S
. W

. 3 d 8 1 3 (T

e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0

) t h i s C ourt c onc l uded t hat t he prot ec t i ve
sw eep i n t he defendant ’s hom e w as i l l eg al w h ere the offi cer di d not ex press hi s bel i e f t hat any t hi rd persons were i nsi de t he defendant ’s hom e or art ic ul at e hi s bel i e f t ha t a t h i r d person insi de the hom e was at t em pt i ng to j eopardi ze ei t h er hi s or t he publ i c ’s safet y . R e a s o r a t 8 1 7
. Furt her, a “prot ec t i ve sw eep” i s nevert hel e ss not a f u l l s earc h of t he prem i ses, B u i e a t 3 3 5
. It “i s narrow l y c onfi ned t o a c ursory vi sual i nspec t i on of t h ose pl ac es i n w hi ch a pe r s o n m i g ht be hi di ng ” and “l ast s no l ong er t han i s
nec essary t o di spel t he reasonabl e suspi c i on of dang er.” B u i e a t 3 2 7 , 3 3 5
- 3 6
. T he searc h of A ppel l ant ’s a part m ent di d not m eet any of t hese c ri teri a. Offi c er Noel S cot t , one of t he fi rst responders t o the sc ene, t est i fi ed t h a t D am i en had advi sed t hat A ppel l ant had al ready l e ft t he s c e n e . ( R R
. V I
- 2 9
- 3 0 )
. I f t hi s w a s
ac c urat e i n f o rm a t i on a “prot ec ti ve sw eep” w a s rendered unnec essary and

c onsequent l y , i l l e g al
. U nder c ert ai n c irc um st anc es, t he pol i c e m ay sei ze e vi denc e i n pl ai n vi ew

w i t hout a w arrant . C o o l i d g e v N e w H a m p s h i r e , 4 0 3 U
. S
. 4 4 3 , 4 6 5 ( 1 9 7 1 )

o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t

, H o r t o n v C a l i f

o r n i a , 4 9 6 U
. S
. 1 2 8 (1 9 9 0 )
. The Suprem e C ourt

ex pl ai n ed i n H o r t o n v C a l i f o r n i a j ust w hat t hose “c i rc um st anc es” are:

36It i s, of c ourse, an essent i al predi c at e t o any val i d w arrant l e s s sei zure of i nc ri m i nat i ng e vi denc e t hat the offi cer di d not vi ol at e t he F ourt h A mendm ent in arri vi ng at the pl ac e from w hi c h t h e evi denc e c oul d be pl ai n l y vi ew ed. T here are, m oreover, t w o addi t i onal c ondi t i ons t hat m ust be sat i sfi ed t o j ust ify t he w arrant l e ss sei zure. Fi rst , not onl y m ust t he i t em be i n pl ai n vi ew , it s i nc ri m i nat i n g c harac t er m ust al so be “i m m edi at el y apparent . ” I d. at 40 3 U .S
. 4 66 ; s ee a ls o Ar izon a v H icks , 4 80 U .S
. a t 3 2 6 -3 2 7
. . ..S ec ond, not onl y m ust the offi cer be law ful l y l oc at ed i n a pl ac e from w hi ch the obj ec t c a n be pl a inl y seen, but he or she m ust al so have a l aw ful ri g ht of ac c ess t o t he obj ec t i t sel f. . . . 4 9 6 U
. S
. 1 2 8 , 1 3 6
- 3 7 ( 1 9 9 0 )
. E vi denc e t hat an offi c er purposeful l y seeks out i s not i n “pl a i n v i e w . ” W h i t e v S t a t e , 7 2 9 S
. W

. 2 d 7 3 7 , 7 4 2 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) , d i s a v o w e d i n p a r t , S t a t e v D o b b s , 3 2 3 S
. W
. 3 d 1 8 4 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) 1 6 (c i t i ng W

a l t e r v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 4 4 7 U
. S
. 6 4 9 (1 9 8 0 ) ). In W h i t e , pol i ce responded t o a di st urbanc e cal l at an E l Paso apart m ent

c om pl ex and w ere advi sed by t h e m anag e r of t he com pl ex t hat a fi g ht w as in

1 6 In D o b b s , t h i s Court hel d that, “so l ong as probabl e cause to bel i e ve that i tems found i n pl ai n vi ew consti tute contraband a ri ses whi l e pol i ce are sti l l l awful l y on the premi ses, and a ny further i nvesti gati on i nto the nature of those i tems does not entai l a n addi ti onal and unj usti fi ed search of, or u ndul y prol onged pol i ce presence on, the premi s es, the sei zure of those i tems i s permi ssi bl e under the Fourth Amendment.” 323 S .W. 3d at 185. Thus, to the extent White remai n s g o o d l a w , i t i s appl i cabl e t o thi s case, and D o b b s i s i napposi te, because thi s case does not i nvol ve “an a d d i t i o nal and unj usti fi ed search of,” and an “undul y prol onged pol i ce presence on, the premi ses.” 37prog ress i n one of t he uni t s. 7 2 9 S
. W
. 2 d a t 7 3 8
. Whi l e t he offi cers w ere quest i oni n g t he t w o men they observed ex i ti ng t he a part m ent i n quest i on, t he

m anag er w al ked i n to the open apart m ent , then c al l ed out and asked t he offi c ers t o ex am i ne “dam ag e ” apparent l y resul t i n g from t he fi g ht bet w een t he tw o m en. I d
. T w o offi c e rs ent ered t he apart m ent a nd observed propert y st rew n about t he fl oor. I d
. a t 7 3 8
- 3 9
. One offi c er observed a J .C
. Penney c redi t card i n t he t op of t h e st ove. I d
. a t 7 3 9
. T he nam e on t he c ard di d not m at c h ei t her of t he nam es g i ven earl i er by t he t w o t enant s. I d
. A ft er c h ec ki ng wi t h t he pol i c e depart m ent and rec ei vi ng a neg at i ve report t hat t h e c a rd w as st ol en, t h e offi cer ret urned t he

c redi t card t o t he st ove w here he ha d f o u n d i t and then “l ooked around t he apart m ent ,” not i ci ng t hat t here w as a l arg e am ount of “fem al e” j e w el ry st rew n about one area of t he fl oor and several st ereo s a n d o t her it em s of personal propert y al so sc at t ered about t he a part m ent . I d
. T he offi c er t ook t h e seri a l

num ber off t he bac k of one st ereo w i t hout movi ng t he pi ec e of equi pm ent and al so w rot e dow n t he nam e and a d d r e s s o f an i ndi vi dual t hat w as w ri t t en on a bac kpac k found on t he fl oor. I d
. H e then c al l ed t he pol i c e st at i on t o c hec k on t h e it em s, but ag ai n rec ei ved a neg at i ve response t hat t he it em s w ere st ol en. I d
. Fi nal l y , the offi c er l eft t he ap a r t m ent , w al ked upst ai rs t o t he manag er’s 38apart m ent , phoned t he rec ords and i dent i fi c at i on sec t i o n o f t h e pol i ce

depart m ent , g ave them t he nam e found on t he b a c k p a c k t o c hec k for fi l ed

c om pl ai nt s, and w as advi s e d t hat t he i ndi vi dual had i ndeed fi led a burg l ary
c om pl ai nt . I d
. T he C o u r t of C ri mi n al A ppeal s rul ed t hat t he offi c ers l ac ked probabl e
c ause t o searc h for or t o sei ze t he propert y from the defendant ’s a part m ent . I d
.
a t 7 4 0
. E ven i f t he i ni t ial pol i c e ent ry was l eg al , t he C ourt sai d, “t he offi c er’s subsequent c onduc t sat i sfi es nei t her t he i nadvert ent n or t he probabl e c a use prong of t he m odi fi ed C ool i dg e t est .” I d
. a t 7 4 1
. T he offi c e rs’ a c t i ons in

c ont i nui ng t o “l ook around” t he apart m e n t were “c l earl y ex pl orat ory i n nat ure,” and it w as onl y “aft er furt her inv e s t i g a t i ve st eps w ere t aken, a l bei t m ost t h oroug hl y ,” t h a t t he o f f i c ers had probabl e cause t o sei ze the i tem s as st ol en g oods. Id
. S i m i l arl y , i n t he i nst ant c ase, t he offi c ers’ w arrant l ess searc h of A ppel l ant ’s a part m e nt aft er t he ex i g ent c i rc um st anc es t hat j ust i fi ed t hei r i ni t i a l ent ry no l ong er ex i st ed “has al l t he el e m ent s of a sy st e m at i c searc h for i nc ri m i nat i ng evi denc e.” I d
. a t 7 4 2
. T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 3 8
. 2 3 ( a ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 4 ) bars t h e adm i ssi on of “evi denc e obt ai ned by an offi c er or ot her person i n vi ol at i on of any 39provi si ons of t he C onst i t ut i on or l aw s of t he St at e of T e xas, or of t he C onst i t ut i on

or l a ws of t he U ni t ed S t at es of A m eri c a,” ag ai nst t he ac c used on t he t ri al of any
c ri m i nal c ase. Appel l ant has show n s u p r a t hat al l of t he i t em s sei zed from hi s apart m ent subsequent t o t h e proc urem ent of t he searc h w arrant were obt ai ned i n v i o l at i on of t h e F

o u r t h Am e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . T herefore, t h e t ri al c ourt erred i n adm it t i ng al l of t he i t em s in e vi denc e at A ppel l ant ’s t ri al 1 7

. Furt her, bec ause addi t i onal i t em s of evi denc e w ere “c om e at by ex pl oi t at i on of t hat i l leg al i t y ,” al l of i t sh o u l d h a v e been ex c l uded as w el l
. W o n g S u n v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 7 1 U
. S
. 4 7 1 , 4 8 8 ( 1 9 6 3 )
. Just as the searc h of hi s apart ment ex c eeded the sc ope of t h e F ou r t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , A ppel l a nt al so assert s t hat i t ex c eed that perm i t t ed under a r t
. I , § 9 o f t h e T e xa s C o n s t i t u t i o n . A s st at ed i n hi s sec ond poi nt of error t hi s C ourt in M a y b e r r y , 8 3 0 S
. W

. 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 0 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) c onc l uded t hat t h e T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n affords g reat er i ndi vi dual prot ec t i ons t o i t s c i t izens i n searc h and sei zure c ases t han t h e

17 A p p e l l ant n otes that the tri al court di d grant hi s M oti on to Supp r es s regardi ng t h ose few i t ems that t h e pol i ce sei zed from “i nsi de the n i ghtstand, the papers and the photograp h, a n d a s to the bandages col l ected from the comforter.” (C R
. I I
- 4 0 9

). 40F

o u r t h A m e n d m e n t
. How ever, t hi s C ourt has ut il i zed t he t est for a “prot ec t i ve
sw eep” art i c ul at ed i n M a r y l a n d v B u i e . R e a s o r 1 2 S
. W

. 3 d a t 8 1 6
- 1 7
. A ppel l ant h as show n that t he t ri al c ourt erred i n adm i t t i ng al l of t he i l l eg al l y sei zed evi denc e and t hat t he e rror w as an a buse of di sc ret i on. Bec ause t h e error i s c onst i t ut i onal error t hat i s subj ec t t o a harm l ess e rror anal y si s, t hi s C ourt m ust reverse t he Judg m ent unl e ss t he C ourt det erm i nes be y ond a
r e a s o nabl e doubt t hat t h e e rror di d not c ont ri but e t o A ppel l ant ’s convi c t i o n o r puni shm ent . T

e x . R
. A p p . P r o c . 4 4
. 2 (

a )
. A ppel l ant c ont e n ds t hat t he adm i ssi on of t h e i t em s of evi denc e, part i c u l a r l y t he i nst rum ent s used i n t he offense, di d

c o n t r i b ut e t o hi s c onvi c t i on and ul t im at e deat h sent enc e. T houg h D am i e n t e st i fi ed duri ng t he gui l t i nnoc enc e phase of A ppel l ant ’s tri al reg ardi ng w hat he had wi t n essed, t h e j ury w as al l ow ed t o vi ew and t ouc h t he i nst rum ent al i t i es of t h e m assac re. Surel y one c oul d reason t hat suc h know l e dg e of i nadm issi bl e and prej udi c i al i t e m s o f dest ruc t i on c ont ri but e d t o the j ury ’s fi ndi ng s of g ui l t and subsequent deat h sent enc e. Bec ause of t h i s A ppel l ant respec t ful l y pray s t h at t h is C ourt reverse t he tri al c o u r t ’s Judg m ent and rem a nd hi s bac k t o t he t ri a l

c ourt w i t h i nst ruc t i ons t hat h e be a fforded a new t ri al
. S e e , T e x. C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 4 4
. 2 9 (

a ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 1 2 )
.

41P O I N T O F E R R O R F IV E T HE T R IA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A P P ELLA NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E S E IZE D BE C A U S E APPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O C O UNS E L I N VIOLA T ION OF T

H E F I F T H , S I X T H , A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U NI TE D S T

A T E S C O N S T IT U T I O N
. (C R
. I

-2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
- S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R S I X T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O SU PPRE S S A L L E VID E NC E S E IZE D BE C A U S E APPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O C O UNS E L I N VIOLA T ION O F A R T

I C L E I , S E C T

I O N 1 0 O F T H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N A N D A R T

I C L E S 1
. 0 5 , 1 5
. 1 7 , A N D 3 8
. 2 3 O F T H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N

AL P R O C E D U R E
. ( C R
. I
2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V

I
- 1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X

L I I
S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R S E V E N T HE TRIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN DE NY I NG A PPE L L A NT ’S M OT ION T O S U PPRE S S A LL E VID E NC E SE IZE D BY LA W E NFORC E M ENT BE CA U S E A PPE LLA NT WA S D E NIE D HIS RIGHT T O C OU NS E L IN VIOLA T ION O F O K L A H O M

A S T A T U T E S 2 2
- 2 5 1 A N D 2 2
- 2 5 2
. ( C R
. I
- 2 8 4
- 9 9 ; R R
. V I
- 1 2 0
- 4 3 , 1 8 8
- 2 2 8 , X L II
- S P T X 3 , S P T X 4 , S P T X 5 , & S P T

X 6 )
. 42A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S A
. T he Fac t s A f t er Appel l ant w a s pl a c ed under arrest by t he Okl ahom a T roopers t h e fol l ow i ng sequenc e of event s oc c urred as sum mari zed i n A ppel l a nt ’s M ot i on t o S uppress al l e vi denc e sei zed subsequent t o hi s unl aw ful a r r e s t , t he unl aw ful

searc h of hi s apart m ent , and hi s deni al of c ounsel . T he rec ord show s: A t the pol i c e st a t i on, phot og raphs w er e m a de of t he D efendant ’s i nj uri es at approx i mat el y 3 :4 0 a.m . on M ay 2 , 2 0 1 3. A di sc ussi on bet w een t he pol ic e and the D efe n d a nt , w hi c h c onc erned t he proc edure for t aki ng t he phot og raphs w a s d o n e , but very l i tt l e c onversat ion ot herw i se oc c urred. T h e Defendant di d ask how hi s si t uat i on w as, and t he D et ec t i ves st at ed t h a t t hey w oul d t al k at a l at er t i m e. A t a pprox i m at el y 4 :2 5 a.m . on May 2 , 2 0 1 3 , t he D efendant w as t aken t o a l oc a l hospi t al
. Aft er t reat m ent , the D efendant w as ret urned t o t he Garvi n C ount y, Okl ahom a j ai l
. W hi l e at the hospi t a l, the D efendant rem ai n ed i n pol ic e c ust ody
. T h e D efendant w as i nt ervi ew ed at t he Garvi n C ount y j ai l for a b o u t 5 m i nut es on 8:1 6 a.m . on May 2, 2 0 1 3 by Det ec t i ve S hel l ey a n d M ac k. D uri ng t he fi rst m i nut e

43o f t h e i n t e r v i e w , t h e D e f e n d a n t unequi voc al l y i nvoked h i s ri g h t t o c ounsel
. Rat her t han st op t he i nt ervi ew , the det ec t i ves w e n t on t o read t he D efendant M i randa w arni ng s. T he D e f e ndant t hen asked about underw e ar, medi c i ne, and the n a t ure of hi s c harg es. T he det ec ti ves t o l d t he D efendant t hat he w as bei ng c harg ed w i t h t w o c ount s of m urder, a nd o ne c ount o f c ri m i n al at t em pt ed m urder. Th e i nt ervi ew w as t hen t erm i nat ed. A t a pprox i m a t el y 1 0 :0 0 a.m . on May 2 , 2 0 1 3 , t he D efendant w as t a k e n before S pec i al Judg e T r i s ha M i sak of the 2 1 st D i st ri c t C ourt of Okl ahom a. A t t hi s t im e, t he D efendant request ed a heari ng on h i s ex t radi t ion and di d not w ai ve e xt radi t i on t o t he St at e of T ex as. A t approx i mat el y 1 :3 0 p.m . on M ay 2 , 2 0 1 3 , t he D e f e n d a nt w as arrai gned on a Fug i ti ve from Just i c e c harg e by S pec i al D i st ri c t Judg e M i sak, w hi c h resul t e d from hi s refusal t o w ai ve ex t radi t ion. A t approx i m a t el y 1 2 :0 7 p.m . on May 2 , 2 0 1 3 , t he searc h w a rrant (Vehi cl e Wa r rant # 1 ) w as i ssued under O k l ahom a l aw a n d si g ned by S pec i al Judg e M i sak for t h e s earc h of t he vehi c l e t he D efendant w as operat i ng a t t he t i me of hi s arrest . T h i s w a r r a n t w a s e x e c u t e d a t approx i mat el y 2 :4 0 p.m . A t no t i me w as t he D efendant

44arrai gned on t he T ex as c harg e s b y any j udg e i n Okl ahom a. On M a y 2 , 2 0 1 3 , before 5 :0 0 p.m ., t he D efendant w as assaul t ed by several i nm at es of t he Garvi n C ount y Jai l w hi c h n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e D e f e n d a n t b e i n g t r ansport ed bac k t o t he c ount y hospi tal
. Whi l e at t he h ospi t al t he D efendan t w as c ont i nuousl y i n pol i c e c ust ody
. On M ay 3 , 2 0 1 3 , at approx i mat el y 8 : 3 0 a.m . t he det ec t i ves w ere bac k to t h e Gar v i n Count y S h eri ff’s Offi c e t o Obt ai n v i d e o s f r o m t h e i n m a t e i n t e r v i e w s c onc ern i n g t he assaul t on the D efendant by i n m a t es of t he Garvi n Count y Jai l
. T he d e t e c t i v e s w e r e i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e D efendant w ant ed t o w ai ve hi s e x t radi t i on ri g ht s and al so w ant ed t o speak w i t h the det ec t i ves. ( C R
. I
- 2 9 2
- 9 4 )
. T he brut al and vi c i ous assaul t perpet rat ed ag ai n st A ppel lant by hi s fel l ow i nm at es w as not c oi nc i denc e. D et ec t i ve M ac k of t he Bedford Pol i c e D epart m ent t e st i fi ed on c ross-ex am i na t i o n d u ri ng t h e heari ng on Appel l ant ’s M ot i on t o S uppress t hat A ppel lant ’s presenc e i n t he c e l l w i th t hose part i c ul ar i n m at es w a s
c ont ri ved by t he S heri ff of Garvi n C ount y . T he rec ord refl ec t s:

45Q. A nd I w ant t o - - I w a nt t o di rec t y ou r at t ent i on t o y our report . I c am e ac ross som et hi ng i nt erest i n g . I t say s y ou and S hel l e y and Ri c k s w ere t h ere w hen he g ot arrai gned and t hat t he s h eri ff w as t here, and t he sheri ff - - I g ues s i t ’ s S heri ff M ul l et t - - i n form ed y ou t h a t he w as g oi ng t o put Ri c ks i n g eneral popul at i on; - - A
. Y es, si r.

* * * Q. A nd t here w as a l it t l e addi t i o nal i nform at i on t here, t hat he w as g oi ng t o put Ri c ks i n general popul at i on obvi ousl y w i t h t he idea t hat i f h e w ere t o say som et hi ng about t he offenses or w oul d vol unt eer or g et t o t al ki ng about i t, he w as g oi ng t o i nform y ou about i t ? A
. Y es, si r. Q. A nd t hat w as c om i ng from hi m i ndependent l y ; i sn’t t hat ri ght ? A
. Y es. Q. Y ou di dn’t ask hi m t o do i t ? A
. D i dn’t ask hi m t o do any t hi ng . Q. A nd, c e rt ai nl y , you know , it ’s not a b ad deal from y our perspec t i ve i f i t di d happen. If Ri c ks di d go i n t o t he c el l

46and he sai d som e t h i n g y ou c oul d use, t hat ’ s n ot som et hi ng y ou w oul d nec essari l y refuse, ri ght ? A
. C orrec t . Q. A nd c ert ai nl y y ou’re i n no posi ti on t o t el l t he sheri ff up t here i n Okl ahom a how t o run hi s show ; - - A
. Y es, si r. Q. - - i s t hat ri g ht ? A
. T hat ’s c orrec t . Q. A l l ri g ht
. S o not onl y does he g et arrai g n ed on hi s fug i t ive c harg e, t h e sheri ff hi m sel f say s, “Li st en, I’m g oi ng t o send t h is g uy i n to g eneral popul at i on, and w e’l l see w hat happens ,” essent i al l y , ri g ht ? A
. Y es, si r.

* * * Q. How l ong w as i t from the t i m e y ’ al l l eft t he sheri f f i n the c ourt room w i t h M r. Ri c ks w as i t before y ou g ot t he phone c al l t h a t there w as a fi ght out t here i n the j ai l ? A
. I don’t - - I don’t know w hat t i m e w e rec ei ved a - - t he t el ephone c a l l - -

47Q. U h-huh. A
. - - i nform ing us of the assaul t . I know t hat t he arrai g nm ent w as at 1 :3 0 p.m . and t h at w e had t he searc h warrant for t h e v e h i c l e ex ec ut ed at 2 :4 0 p.m ., and i t w as duri ng t hat t i m e t hat t he searc h w arrant w as b e i n g e xec ut ed t hat w e rec ei ved a t el ephone c a l l . S o - -

* * * Q. How soon aft er t h e fi g ht d i d y ou see hi m? A
. Not know i ng w hen t he ac t ual fi g h t oc curred, I saw hi m bei ng led out from t he jai l t o a t ransport u n i t t o be t aken t o t he hospi t al
. Q. How di d h e l ook t o y ou phy si c a ll y ? A
. Beat up.

* * * Q. S o t he i nj uri e s y ou were abl e t o see w ere w hat ? A
. T he ey e, bl ood c om i ng f r o m h i s m out h
.
* * *

48Q. A l l ri ght
. He’s on hi s w ay t o the hospi t a l at t hat poi n t , I’m a ssum ing , and w hen he g e t s bac k from t he h ospi t al , do y ’ al l g et a c al l t hat he w ant s t o t al k to y ’al l ? A
. I bel i e ve i t w as t he nex t day
.

* * * Q. Okay
. A
. We g ot t he c al l that he want ed t o speak w i t h us and t hat he w as wi l li ng t o w ai ve hi s ri g ht s. ( R R
. V I
- 2 1 6
- 2 0 )
. B. Federal C onst i tut i onal Law Onc e t he adversari a l j udi ci al proc e ss has been i ni ti at ed, t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n g uarant ees a defendant the ri g ht t o have c ounsel present a t al l “c ri t i c al ” st ag es of t he c ri m i nal proc eedi n g s . U n i t e d S t a t e s v W

a d e , 3 8 8 U
. S
. 2 1 8 , 2 2 7
- 2 2 8 (1 9 6 7 ) ; P o w e l l v A l a b a m a , 2 8 7 U
. S
. 4 5 , 5 7 ( 1 9 3 2 )
. Int errog at i on by t he S t at e i s one suc h st ag e . M a s s i a h v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 7 7 U
. S
. 2 0 1 , 2 0 4
- 0 5 ( 1 9 6 4 )
. S e e a l s o , U n i t e d S t a t e s v H e n r y , 4 4 7 U
. S
. 2 6 4 2 7 4 ( 1 9 8 0 )
. T hi s ri g ht t o c ounsel m ay be w ai ved by a defendant ,
so l ong as re l i n qui shm e nt i s vol unt ary , know i ng , and i nt el l i g ent . M o n t e j o v

49L o u i

s i a n a , 5 5 6 U
. S
. 7 7 8 (

2 0 0 9 ) (c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d

)
. Pol i c e may not t hreat en, t ri c k, or c aj ol e an ac c used i nt o w ai vi n g hi s c onst i t ut i onal ri g ht s. N a s h v S t a t e , 4 7 7 S
. W
. 2 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . ) c e r t
. d e n i e d , 4 0 9 U
. S
. 8 8 7 ( 1 9 7 2 )
. S e parat e and di st i nc t fr om t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t ri g ht to c ounsel i s t h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t ri g ht t o have c ounsel present at any c ust odi al i n t errog at i on. A n i ndi vi d u a l h e l d for int errog at i on m ust be c l earl y i nform ed t hat he has t he ri g ht t o c onsul t w i t h a l a wy er and t o ha v e t h e l aw y er w i th hi m duri ng i nt errog at i o n. M i r a n d a v A r i z o n a , 3 8 4 U
. S
. 4 3 6 , 4 7 1 ( 1 9 6 6 )
. T h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t ri ght t o counsel duri n g pol i c e i n t errog at ion i s t ri g g ered by t he M i randa w arni ng s t hat pol ic e are l aw ful l y requi red t o g i ve an i ndi vi dual before beg i nni ng any c ust odi al quest i oni ng . P e c i n a v S t a t e , 3 6 1 S
. W
. 3 d 6 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 )
. T o i nvoke thi s ri g ht , t he defenda n t m ust unam bi g uousl y request

c ounsel
. D a v

i s v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 1 2 U
. S
. 4 5 2 , 4 5 9 ( 1 9 9 4 )
. I nvoc a t i on of t he M i r a n d a ri g ht t o c ounsel “ r equi res, at a m i ni m um , som e st at em ent that c an reasonabl y be c onst rued t o be an ex pressi on of a desi re for the assi st anc e of an at torney .” I d
. (quot i ng M c N e i l v W i s c o n s i n , 5 0 1 U
. S
. 1 7 1 , 1 7 8 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ). U nder M i r a n d a , if t he i n di vi dual st a t es t hat he w ant s a n at torney , t hen t he i nt errog at i on m ust cease unt i l an at t orney i s present . 3 8 4 U
. S
. a t 4 7 4
. A t t h at 50t im e, t he i ndi vi dual m ust have an opport uni t y t o c onfer w i th t he at t orney and t o

have h i m present duri ng any subsequent quest i o n i ng . I d
. a t 4 7 4
. If t he i ndi vi dual c an not obt ai n an at t orney , and he i ndi c at e s that he w ant s one before speaki ng t o pol i c e, t hen t h e y m ust r e spec t h i s dec i si on t o rem ai n si l ent . I d
. a t 4 7 4
. If t he quest i oni ng c ont i nues w it hout t he presenc e o f a n at t orney and a st at em ent i s t a k e n, t hen t he S t at e wi l l bear “a heavy burden...t o dem onst rat e t h a t t he defendant k now i ng l y and i nt el l i g ent l y wai ved h i s pri vi l eg e ag ai nst sel fi nc ri m i nat i on a n d hi s ri g ht t o ret ai ned or appoi n t ed c ounsel .” I d
. a t 4 7 5
. When

an ac c used has invoked hi s ri ght t o h ave c ounsel present duri ng c ust odi a l i nt errog at i on, a val i d w ai ver of t hat ri ght c an not be est abl i shed by show i ng onl y t h a t he responded t o furt her pol i c e i n i t i a t e d c ust odi al i nt e rrog at i on, even i f he has been advi sed of hi s ri g h t s. E d w a r d s v A r i z o n a , 4 5 1 U
. S
. 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 ( 1 9 8 1 ). A w ai ver of t he ri ght to counsel t hat fol l ow s an “unequi voc al el ec t i on of t he ri g ht ” i s al so i nval id. M o n t e

j o v L ou i s i a n a a t 7 9 7 (

q u o t i n g T e x a s v C o b b , 5 3 2 U
. S
. 1 6 2 , 1 7 6 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( K e n n e d y , J
. , c o n c u r r i n g

) ). And, i f bot h t h e F i f t h a n d S i

x t h A m e n d m e n t ri g ht t o counsel had ac c rued, t hen a val i d w ai ver of c ounsel ri ght s “shoul d not be i nferred from t he m ere response by t he ac c used t o overt or m ore subt le form s of i nt errog at i on - - or ot her effort s t o el i c i t i nc ri mi nat i ng 51i nform a ti on.” E d w a r d s v A r i z o n a a t 4 8 4 n . 8
. A n ac c used w ho has e x pressed hi s desi re t o deal w i th t he pol i c e onl y t hroug h counsel i s not subj e c t t o furt h er i nt errog at i on by t he aut hori t i e s u n t i l c ounsel has been m ade avai l a bl e t o hi m , unl ess t h e ac c used hi m sel f i ni t i at e s f u r t her c om m uni c at i on, e x c h ang es or
c onversat i ons w i th t he pol i c e. I d
. a t 4 8 4
- 8 5
. Onc e a n ac c used, subj ec t ed t o cust odi al i nt errog at i on, h as req u e s t e d

c ounsel or i ndi c at ed a desi re t o c onsul t c ounsel , t he l aw enforc em ent aut hori t i es
m ay not t hreat en, t ri c k, or c aj ol e a n ac c used i n t o a w ai ver of hi s c onst i t ut i onal ri g ht s i n order t o be abl e t o c ont i nue t he i nt errog at i on. N a s h v S t a t e a t 5 6 3
.

C . T ex as C onst i t ut i onal and S t at ut ory Law “In al l cri m inal prosec ut i ons t he ac c used...shal l not be com pel l ed t o g i ve evi denc e ag ai nst hi m se l f a n d s hal l have t he ri ght of bei n g h eard by hi m sel f or
c ounsel , or bot h...” T

e x . C o n s t
. a r t
. I , § 1 0
. In H e r n a n d e z v S t a t e , 7 2 6 S
. W
. 2 d 5 3 , 5 6
- 5 7 (T e x . C r i m . Ap p . 1 9 8 6

) t hi s C ourt hel d t hat our c onst i t ut i onal and st at ut ory provi si ons do n ot creat e a st andard i n i neffec t i ve assi st anc e c ases t h at i s m ore prot e ct i ve of a defendant ’s ri ght s t han the st andard put forw ard by t he S uprem e C ourt i n S t r i c k l a n d v W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U
. S
. 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ). A C ourt of A ppeal s has i n terpret ed t hi s to m ean “t hat t he T ex as C onst it ut i on’s g uarant ee 52of a ri g ht t o c ounsel does not ex c eed t he paral l el g uarant ee under the S i x t h and

Fourt eent h Am endm e nt s t o t he U ni t ed S t at e s C onst i t ut i on.” D u h a r t v S t a t e , 8 9 0 S
. W
. 2 d 1 8 7 , 1 8 8 ( T

e x . A p p . - - C o r

p u s C h r i s t i 1 9 9 4 , n o p e t
. ). A r t
. 1 5
. 1 7 (

a ) T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 9

) requi res t hat t he person m aki ng t he arrest or t h e person havi ng c ust ody of t he person arrest ed t o, “w i t hou t u n n ec essary del ay , but not l at er t han 48 hours aft er the person i s
a rrest ed, t ake the person arrest ed or h ave hi m t aken before som e mag i st rat e of t he c ount y w here t h e ac c used w as arrest ed or, t o provi de m ore ex pedi t i ousl y t o t he person arrest ed t he w arni ng s desc ri bed by t hi s art i cl e, before a mag i st rat e i n any ot her c ount y of t hi s st at e.” T he m ag i st rat e’s dut ies (t hat are rel evant t o t h e i ssues i n t he c ase at bar) are as fol low s:

T h e m ag i st rat e shal l i nform i n c lear l a ng uag e the person arrest e d , e i t her i n person or t hroug h the el e ct roni c broadc ast sy st em , of t h e ac cusat i on a g ai nst h i m and of any affi davi t fi l ed therew i t h, of hi s ri ght t o ret ai n c ounsel , of hi s ri g ht t o rem ai n si l ent , of hi s ri ght t o h a ve an at t orney present duri n g any i n t ervi ew w i t h peac e offi c e rs or a t t orney s represent ing t he st at e, of h i s ri g ht t o t erm i n at e t he i nt ervi e w at any t i me, and of hi s ri g ht t o have an ex am i n ing t ri al
. T he mag i st rat e sh a l l al so i nform the person arrest ed of t he person’s ri g ht t o request t he appoi nt m ent of c ounsel i f t h e p e r son c annot afford c ounsel
. T h e m a g i st rat e shal l i nform the p e rson arrest ed of t he proc e dures for request i n g 53appoi nt m ent of c ounsel
. . . .T he m ag i st rat e shal l ensure t hat re a s o n a b l e assi st anc e i n com pl et i n g t he nec essary f o rm s for request i ng appoi n t m ent of counsel i s provi ded t o t he person at t he sam e t i m e. I f t he person arre s t e d i s i ndi g ent and request s appoi nt ment of c ounsel and i f t he m ag i st r a t e i s a u t h ori zed under Art i cl e 2 6.0 4 t o appoi nt c ounsel for i ndi g e n t defendant s i n the c ount y , t he m ag i st rat e shal l appoi nt c ounsel i n ac c ordanc e w i t h A rt i c l e 1.0 5 1
. If t he m ag ist rat e i s not aut hori zed to appoi n t c o u n sel , t he m ag ist rat e shal l w i t hout unnec essary del ay , but not l at e r t han 2 4 hours a ft e r t he person arrest ed request s appoi nt m e n t of c ounsel , t ransm i t , or c ause t o be t r a n s mi t t ed t o the c ourt or t o the c ourt s’ desi g nee aut hori zed under Art i cl e 2 6
. 0 4 to a ppoi nt c ounsel i n t he c ount y , t he form s request ing t he a ppoi nt m ent of counsel
. T he mag i st rat e shal l al so inform t he person arrest ed t hat he is not requi red t o m a ke a st at em e nt and t hat any st at em e nt m ade by h im m ay be used ag ai nst hi m . The mag i st rat e shal l al l ow t he person arrest ed reasonabl e ti m e and opport uni t y t o c onsul t c ounsel and shal l , aft er det erm ini ng w het her t he person i s c urrent l y on bai l for a separat e c ri m i nal offense, adm i t the person arrest ed t o bai l i f al l ow ed by l aw . T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 1 5
. 1 7 ( a )
. T hese dut i es are m andat ory . T e x . O p . A t t ’ y G e n . G A
- 0 9 9 3 (2 0 1 3 )
. Bec ause t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r oc e d u r e “i s i nt ended t o em brac e rul es a p p l ic abl e t o the prevent i on and prosec ut i on of offenses ag ai n st t he l aw s of t hi s S t at e,” a r t
. 1
. 0 3 T e x. C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . ( V e r n o n 1 9 6 5

) , A ppel l ant c ont ends t hat t he provi si ons of a r t
. 1 5
. 1 7 shoul d have

54b e e n fol l ow e d by t h e arrest i ng offi c ers and m a g i st rat e i n Okl ahom a, si n c e

A ppel l ant w as arrest ed, and ul t i m at el y prosec ut ed, for offenses ag a i nst t he l aw s of t hi s S tat e. In t he al t ernat i ve, i f the arrest i ng offi c ers and Judg e M i sak had ful fi l l ed t h e i r dut ies under a r t
. 1 5
. 1 7 , t hen t he t ri al c ourt shoul d have g rant ed A ppel l ant ’ s M ot i on t o S up p r e s s bec ause A ppel l ant ’s S i xt h A m e n d m e n t ri g ht t o c ounsel at tac h e d at t he heari ng . S e e , P e c i n a v S t a t e . (“T he S i x t h Am e n dm ent ri g ht t o
c ounsel i s t ri g g ered by j udi c ial arrai g nm ent or A rt i c le 1 5 .1 7 m ag ist rat i on.”) “No evi denc e obt ai ned by an offi c er or ot he r person i n vi ol at ion of any provi si ons of t he C onst i t ut i on or l aw s of t he St at e of T e xas, or of t he C onst i t ut i on
or l aw s of t he U ni t ed S t at e s of A m eri c a, s h a ll be adm i t t ed i n evi denc e ag ai nst t h e ac c used on t he tri al of a n y c ri m i nal c a s e . ” T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 3 8
. 2 3 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 1 9 8 7

)
. T h e t ri al c ourt erred i n deny i n g A ppel lant ’s M ot i on t o S uppress and adm i t t i ng i n evi denc e al l of t he i t em s sei zed a ft er hi s unl aw ful arrest and hi s unl aw ful deni al of c ounsel
. Furt her, any ot her evi denc e deri ved or obt ai ned from the e vi denc e c ol l e c t e d i n vi ol a t i on of A ppel l ant ’s c onst i t ut i onal ri g ht s sho u l d have been ex c l uded as “frui t of t h e poi sonous t ree.” W on g S u n v U n i t e d S t a t e s a t 4 8 8

) (quot i ng M ag ui re, E vid en ce of G uilt 2 2 1 (1 9 5 9)). It w a s

55t h e refore error for t h e t ri al court t o deny A ppel l ant ’s M ot i on t o S uppress.

A v i o l a t i on of a r t
. 1 5
. 1 7 “does not ri se t o t he st at us of a deni al of due proc ess.” P e r r

y v J o n e s , 5 0 6 F

. 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) (c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d

). T herefore, for purposes of a harm anal ysi s, A ppel lant w il l t reat t he h arm c aused by t h e erroneous deni al o f h i s M ot i on t o S uppress a s non c onst i t ut i onal error under T e x . R
. A p p . P r o c . 4 4
. 2 (

b )
. T hus, the t ri al court ’s erroneous deni al of A ppel l ant ’s M ot i on t o S uppress al l e v i denc e sei zed as a resul t of h i s unl aw ful deni a l of c ounsel m ust be di sreg arded unl ess a subst ant i al r i g h t o f A ppel l a nt

w as affec t ed. “A subst ant i a l ri g ht i s affec t ed w hen t he error had a subst ant i a l and i nj uri ous e ffec t or i nfl uenc e i n det e rm i ni ng t he j ury ’s verdi c t .” K i n g v S t a t e , 9 5 3 S
. W
. 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7

)
. D . Okl ahom a S t at ut e s T he l aw requi ri ng t he appoi nt m ent of c ounsel a ppears t o be t he sam e i n t h e S t at e of Okl ahom a. In W y a t t v W o l f , 3 2 4 P
. 2 d 5 4 8 ( O k l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 5 8 ) t h e Okl ahom a C ourt of C ri m i n al A ppeal s st at ed:

“We h ol d t h a t t he ex press provi si ons of t he C onst it ut i on and t he st at ut es and t h e c l ear i m pl i c a t i ons t hereof, espec i al l y 2 2 O
. S
. 1 9 5 1 § 2 5 1 , i s t hat t he a c c used m ust be advi sed of hi s ri g ht to ai d of c ounsel w h en broug ht before t he m ag i st rat e. If he desi res ai d of c ounsel and 56i s unabl e be c a u se of povert y to obt a i n c ounsel , i t nec essari l y fol l ow s t h a t t he m ag i st rat e shoul d appoi nt c ounse l for hi m . C ert ai nl y suc h prac t i ce i s w it hi n the spi ri t of t h e l aw . Ot herw i se, t he advi c e i n suc h cases, as t o t he ri g ht , i s a vai n and m eani ng l e ss g est ure w i t hout affec t i n g t h e provi si ons of t he ri g ht
. In ot her w ords, how c an w e assert t he ri g ht i n one i nst anc e and deny i t i n anot her? We are of t he c onsi dered opi ni on t hat t he c l ear i n t e n t o f t h e f o r e g o i n g p r o v i s i o n s a nd i nt erpret at i ons t hereof i s t hat t he ac c used is ent i t l ed t o represent at i on of c ounsel i f he so desi res; ei t her of h i s ow n c hoi ce, i f abl e t o provi de t he sam e , and i f not by appoi nt m ent of t he m ag i st rat e . E qual prot ec ti on of the l aw , w here i ndi g ent defendant s are i nvol ved, requi res suc h proc edure be i nvoked i n order t hat t he ac c used’s subst ant ial ri g ht s m ay be prot ec t ed. A s of t hi s feat ure of t h e w i t hi n pet i t ion for w ri t of manda m u s , the ex am i ni ng m ag i st rat e i s ordered to appoi n t counsel for t he ac c used.” W y a t t v W o l f a t 5 5 1
. S e e a l s o, B r o w n v S t a t e , 2 6 6 P
. 4 7 6 , 3 9 O k l a . C r i m . 4 0 6 ( O k l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 2 8 ) ; T i p t o n v S t a t e , 2 3 5 P
. 2 5 9 , 3 0 O k l a . C r i m . 5 6 (O k l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 2 5 ); P o l k v S t a t e , 2 2 4 P
. 1 9 4 , 2 6 O k l a . C r i m . 2 8 3 ( O k l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 2 4 )
.

E . T he A ppl i c at i on of t he Fac t s t o t he Law In t he c ase at bar, A ppe l l a n t wa s arrest ed by t he Okl ahom a St at e T roopers. He w as t aken before t h e Okl ahom a m a g i st rat e, Judg e T ri sha M isak, t o be arrai g ned. Judg e M i sak arrang ed hi m on hi s pendi ng fug i t i ve c ase. For w hat ever 57reason she refused t o appoi nt hi m a l aw y er. In her c ourt m inut es she w rot e t h at

she w oul d have A ppel l a n t broug ht bac k t o c ourt on Ma y 2 4 , 2 01 3 , t w ent y -t w o day s l at er -- c l earl y l ong er t han t he Okl ahom a st a t ut e perm it s -- t o det erm i ne

w het her or not she w oul d appoi n t c ounsel
. ( R R
. X L I I
- S P T X 4 )
. Not onl y w as t hi s
a vi ol a ti on of t he Okl ahom a st at ut e; i t w a s c l e a rl y a vi ol at i on of bot h t h e Federal and Tex as c onst i t ut i ons as w el l as T ex as st at e st at ut es. S ubsequent l y S heri ff M ul l et t , inst ead of i sol at i ng A ppel l ant in a si ng l e c el l , t hrew hi m i nt o a c el l w i t h “w ol ves” w ho event ual ly beat hi m so severel y t hat he requi r e d m e di c a l t reat m ent at t he l oc a l h ospi t al
. Onl y a ft er h i s ag g ravat e d assaul t di d A ppel l a nt

s u b s e quent l y provi de a vi deot ap e d s t a t e me n t co mp o s e d o f v a r i o u s i n c r i mi n a t i n g st at em ent s but he a lso wai ved t he ex tradi t i on proc eedi n g and a g reed t o g o bac k t o T ex a s. A ppel l ant c ont ends t hat hi s dec isi on t o w ai ve ex tra d i t i o n st em m ed from Judg e M i sak’s refusal t o fol l ow the Federal and S t at e Const i t u t i o n a l s a s

w el l as t he Okl ahom a st at ut es. A l l evi denc e sei zed by l aw enforc em e nt aft er A ppel l ant ’s deni al of c ounsel shoul d have been suppressed. A ppel l ant respec t ful l y request s t hat t hi s C ourt sust ai n hi s fi ft h, si x t h, and sevent h poi nt s of error, reverse t he t ri al c ourt ’s Judg ment , and rem and hi s c ase bac k t o t he t ri al court w i t h i nst ruc t i ons t hat he be g rant ed a new t ri al
. 58P O I N T O F E R R O R E I G H T T H E T R I A L C O U R T C O M M I T T E D RE VE RS IBLE E RROR IN ALLOWING T H E S T A T E T O INT ROD U C E S X2 2 5 A N A U T OPS Y PHOT O GRA PH OF JA M E S GONZA LE Z’S BRA IN BE C A U S E T HE PRE JU D IC IA L EFFE C T GRE A TLY O U T WE IGHE D A NY PROBA T IVE VA L U E
. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 1 1 3
- 1 6 ; X

L I V
- S X # 2 2 5 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R N I N E T H E T R I A L C O U R T C O M M I T T E D RE VE RS IBLE E RROR IN ALLOWIN G THE S T A T E T O INT ROD U C E S X2 2 6 A N A U T OPS Y PHOT O GRA PH OF JA M E S GONZA LE Z’S BRA IN BE C A U S E T HE PRE JU D IC IA L EFFE C T GRE A TLY OU T WE IGHE D A NY PROBA T IVE VA L U E
. ( R R
. X X X I I
- 1 1 3
- 1 6 ; X

L I V
- S X # 2 2 6 )
. A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S A ppel l ant m ade t he fol l ow i ng obj ec t ion t o S t at e’s E xhi bi t s # 2 2 5 a nd # 2 2 6 out si de t he presenc e of t h e j ury . T he rec ord refl ec t s: [PROS E C U T OR] Okay , Y our Honor. T h ese phot og raphs are t he phot og raphs of [Jam es’ ] b reak i n t he skul l , and t here w il l be t est i m ony from D r. Greenberg tha t one of the st a b w ounds ent ered hi s skul l and ent ered t h e brai n. Okay ? A n d t hese phot og raphs are t o c l a ri fy observat i ons and conc lusi ons a bout the

59i nj uri es, bec ause t hey w i l l show how t h ey w er e rec ei ved. T hey ’re more probat i ve t han t hey are prej udi ci al
. J u st bec ause t hey ’ re i n ternal org ans do es n ot m ean t hey ’ re i nadm i ssi bl e. [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L] J u d g e , I u nderst and t he S t at e’s arg um ent , but the di ffi c ul t y w e have i s t hat t he evi d e n c e present e d so far, an d t he c ri me sc ene evi denc e p r e s e nt ed so far, i s very desc ri pt i ve and very graphi c , w hi c h w e have not obj ec t ed t o. T h e desc ri p t i on - - t he doc t or i s a l earned professi onal i n forens i c sc i enc e. S h e c an ex pl ai n t h roug h det ai l , t hroug h t est im ony , w i t hout t he jury bei ng subj ec ted t o t h is hi g hl y pre

j udi c i al phot og raph of som eone’s brai n bei ng ex posed, a s w el l as som eone’s i nt eri or - - the i nt e ri or part of t hei r skul l bei ng ex posed. A l l of that c a n be desc ri bed w i t hout t he ex hi bi t . A n d i t i s o u r p osi t i on t hat 2 2 5 and 2 26 are hi g hl y prej udi c i al and w oul d resul t i n t he jury m aki ng a dec i si on on our c l i ent ’s g ui lt or i n noc enc e based o n a horri fi c ex hi bi t t hat has al ready been subm i t t ed t o t he j ury and not obj e ct ed t o by D efense. [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L] A n d h e r t est im ony - - t he rel at i on of t hese tw o ex hi bi t s i s not g oi ng t o be di sput ed i n any form or fashi on. 60T HE C OU RT : I ’ m g o i n g t o overrul e y our obj ec t i on, and I’m a dm i t t i ng 1 88 t hroug h 2 2 6
. (

R R
. X X X I I
- 1 1 4
- 1 6 )
. “A l t houg h rel evant , evi d e n c e may be ex c l uded i f i t s probat i ve val ue i s subst a nt i al l y out w ei g hed by t he dang e r of unfai r prej udi c e, c onfusi on of t he i ssues, or m i sl eadi ng t h e j ury , or by c onsi derat ions of undue del ay , or n eedl e ss present at i on of c um ul at i ve evi denc e.” T e x . R
. E v i d
. 4 0 3
. When a phot og raph i s offered i n e vi denc e, “Rul e 4 0 3 requi res t h at t he phot og raph have som e probat i ve val ue a nd t hat i t s probat i ve val ue not be subst ant i al ly out w ei g hed by i t s infl am m at ory nat ure.” L o n g v S t a t e , 8 2 3 S
. W
. 2 d 2 5 9 , 2 7 2 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t
. d e n i e d , 5 0 5 U
. S
. 1 2 2 4 ( 1 9 9 2 )
. Onc e a defendant ob j e c t s t o phot og raphi c evi denc e on t he basi s of R u l e 4 0 3 , t he t ri al c ourt m ust w ei g h i t s probat i ve val ue a gai nst i t s pot ent ial fo r u n f ai r prej udi c e. N a r v a i z v S t a t e , 8 4 0 S
. W
. 2 d 4 1 5 , 4 2 9 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) c e r t
. d e n i e d , 5 0 7 U
. S
. 9 7 5 ( 1 9 9 3 )
. When undert aki ng a R u l e 4 0 3 anal ysi s, a tri al c ourt m ust bal anc e (1 ) t he i nherent probat i ve forc e o f t he proffered i t em of evi denc e al ong w i t h (2 ) t he proponent ’s need for t hat evi denc e ag ai n st (3 ) any t endenc y of t he evi denc e t o sug g est dec i si on on a n i m proper basi s, (4 ) any t e ndenc y of t he evi denc e t o 61c onfuse or di st rac t t he j ury from t he m ai n i ssues, (5 ) a ny t endenc y of t he

e v i d e n c e t o be g i ven undue w ei g ht by a jury that has not been equi pped t o eval uat e t he probat i ve forc e of t he evi denc e , a nd (6 ) t he l i kel i hood t h at pres e n t at i on of the evi denc e w i l l c onsum e a n i nordi nat e am ount of t i m e or
m erel y repeat evi denc e al ready adm i t t ed. G i g l i o b i a n c o v S t a t e , 2 1 0 S
. W
. 3 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 1
- 4 2 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6

). In revi ew i n g a t ri a l c ourt ’s dec i si on t o adm i t or ex c l ude evi denc e for abus e o f d i s cret i on, an appel l at e c ourt m ust (1 ) dec i de w het her t he tri al j udg e di d i n fac t c onduc t t he requi red bal anc i ng t est and “di d not si m pl y rul e a rbi t rari l y or c apri c i ousl y ,” a nd ( 2 ) “m easure t he t ri al c ourt ’s rul i ng ag ai nst t he rel evant c ri t eri a by w hi c h a Rul e 40 3 dec i si on i s t o be m ade.” M o n t g o m e r y v S t a t e , 8 1 0 S
. W

. 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 9 2 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0

). U nder t hi s st andard, “j udi c i al rul i ng s wi l l be affi rm ed i f t he t ri a l c ourt fol l ow s t he appropri at e anal y si s and bal a nc i ng fac t ors.” M o n t g o m e r y a t 3 8 0
. In t he c a se at bar, t he t ri al c our t d i d not c onduc t the requi si t e bal anc i ng t e st on t he rec ord. How ever, “a j u d g e i s p r e sum ed t o e n g ag e i n t he requi red bal anc i ng t est onc e Rul e 4 03 i s i n v o k e d,” and a t ri a l c ourt i s not requi red t o st at e on t he rec ord t hat i t had c onduc t ed t he R u l e 4 0 3 bal anc ing t e st ,” W i l l i a m s

v S t a t e , 9 5 8
. S
. W

. 2 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 5
- 9 6 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7

)
. T herefore, A ppel l a nt 62w i l l anal y ze t he t ri al c ourt ’s rul i ng ag a i nst t he rel evant c ri t eri a by w hi c h a R u l e

4 0 3 dec i si on i s t o be m ade. A n abuse of di sc ret i on a ri ses onl y w hen t he p r o b a t i v e val ue of t he phot og raph i s sm al l and i ts i n fl am m at ory pot ent i a l i s g reat . R a m i r e z v S t a t e , 8 1 5 S
. W
. 2 d 6 3 6 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1

) (c i t i ng B u r d i n e

v S t a t e , 7 1 9 S
. W

. 2 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 6 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6

) ). E vi denc e i s unfai rl y prej udi c i al w hen i t has “an undue t endenc y t o sug g est t h a t a dec i si on b e m a d e on an im proper basi s.” M o n t g o m e r y a t 3 8 9
. A phot og raph shoul d be ex c l uded i f i t is so horri fy i n g o r appal l i ng t hat a j uror of

norm al sensi t i vi t y w oul d nec e ssari l y enc ount er di ffi c ul t y rat i onal l y dec i di ng t he

c ri t i c a l i ssues of t he c a se aft er vi ew ing i t . F u l l e r v S t a t e , 8 2 9 S
. W
. 2 d 1 9 1 , 2 0 6 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) c e r t
. d e n i e d , 5 0 8 U
. S
. 9 4 1 ( 1 9 9 3 )
. A s a g eneral rul e , “post -aut opsy phot og raphs a re i nadm issi bl e bec a use they depi c t pri m ari l y w h at

w as done by t he doc t or w ho perform ed t he surg ery , rat her t han w hat w as done by t he appel l ant .” O ’ N e i l l v S t a t e , 6 8 1 S
. W

. 2 d 6 6 3 , 6 7 1 ( T

e x . A p p . - - H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t
. ] 1 9 8 4 , p e t
. r e f ’ d

)
. T hus, i n T

e r r y v S t a t e , 4 9 1 S
. W

. 2 d 1 6 1 , ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 3 ) t he t ri al c ourt abused i ts di sc ret i on by not sust ai n i ng t he appel l ant ’s obj e c ti ons t o pi c t ures t hat show ed “m assi ve m ut i l at i on of t he subj ec t m at t er
c aused by t he surg ery in perform ing t h e aut opsy .” T e r r y a t 1 6 4
. 63T hi s c ase i s anal og ous t o C o r b e t t v S t a t e , 7 6 4 N
. E
. 2 d 6 2 2 ( I n d
. 2 0 0 2 ) , a
m urder and robbery c ase i n I ndi ana i n w hi c h t he t ri al c ourt adm i t t e d m u l t i p l e phot og raphs t aken i m m e di at el y before, duri ng , and af t e r t h e aut opsy perform ed

on t he dec edent
. T hree of t he ex hi bi t s depi c t ed t he vi c t im ’s brai n rem oved from hi s skul l
. I d
. a t 6 2 8
. O n appeal , t h e S uprem e C ourt of Indi ana hel d t hat t he phot og raphs w ere c um ul at i ve and t hat t hei r prej udi c i a l effec t out w e ig hed t hei r probat i ve val ue; thus, i t w as error t o al l ow t hem t o be adm i t t ed. I d
. 1 8 S i m i l arl y , i n R i t c h i e v S t a t e , 6 3 2 P
. 2 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 6 ( O k l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) , anot h er
m urder c ase, phot os t hat show ed t he brai n and skul l c ap of t he dec eased c hi ld

1 8 Ind. Rul e Evi d. 403 provi des: “The court may excl ude rel evant evi dence i f i t s probati v e val ue i s substanti al l y outwei ghed by a danger of one or more of the fol l owi ng: unfai r prej udi ce, confusi ng the i ssues, mi sl eadi ng the j ury, undue d e l a y , o r n e edl essl y presenti n g cumul ati ve evi dence.” Whi l e thi s l anguage i s n o t i denti cal to Tex. R
. Evi d. 403, the Co rbett court fol l owed the same standard of revi ew for admi ssi on of photographi c evi dence that Texas courts do: B e c a u se the admi ssi on and excl usi on of evi dence fal l s wi thi n the s o u n d di screti on of t he tri a l court, thi s Court revi ews t he a d m i s si o n of photographi c evi dence onl y for abuse of di screti on. Byers v State , 709 N.E. 2d 1024, 1028 (Ind. 1999); Amburge y v S tate , 696 N.E. 2d 44, 45 ( Ind. 1998). Rel evant evi dence, i ncl udi ng photographs, m ay be excl uded onl y i f i ts probati ve val ue i s substanti al l y outwei ghed by the danger of unfai r prej udi ce. Ind. Evi dence Rul e 403; Byers, 709 N.E. 2d at 1028. “Even gory and revol t i ng photographs may be admi ssi bl e a s l ong as they are rel evant to some materi al i ssue or show s cenes that a wi t ness coul d descri be oral l y.” Amburgey, 696 N .E. 2 n d at 45; see also Byers, 709 N.E. 2d a t 1028. Photographs, even t hose gruesome i n nature, are admi ssi bl e i f they a c t a s i nterpretati ve ai ds for the j ury and h ave strong probati v e val ue. Spencer v State, 703 N.E. 2d 1053 , 1 0 5 7 (Ind. 1999); Ro b inso n v State, 693 N.E. 2d 548, 553 (Ind. 1998). 64w ere hel d inadm i ssi bl e by t he C ourt of C ri mi nal A ppeal s i n Okl ahom a. S e e a l s o , R e e s e v S t a t e , 3 3 S
. W

. 3 d 2 3 8 ( T

e x . C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0

) (T he appel l ant ’s deat h sent enc e w as reversed based upon t he prej udi c e of a si ng l e phot og raph). C onsi deri ng al l of t he rel evant c ri t eri a , t he rec ord i n thi s c ase reveal s a ri sk t h a t t he probat i ve val ue of t h e evi denc e i s subst ant i al l y out w e ig hed b y u n f a i r prej udi c e, c onfusi on of t he i ssues, and/or m i sl e adi n g t h e j ury . Bot h of t hese pi c tures of J a me s ’ b r a i n w ere g ruesom e a nd unnec essary t o the j ury ’s underst andi ng of h is i nj uri es. T he m edi c al e x a m i ner had t est i fi ed about t hem ; t h e pi c t ures were redundant a nd g rossl y prej udi ci al
. T hi s C ourt shoul d t herefore

c onc l ude t hat t h e t ri al court a c t ed i rrat i onal l y i n fai l i n g t o ex c l ude bot h ex hi bi t s, and t hus abused i t s di sc ret ion. M o n t g o m e r y, 8 1 0 S
. W

. 2 d a t 3 9 2
- 9 3
. A ppel l ant has show n s u p r a that i t w a s error for t he tri al court t o overrul e A ppe l l a n t ’ s o b

j e ct i ons and adm i t t he tw o phot og raphs of Jam es Gonzal ez’s brai n i nt o e vi denc e . Bec ause t he error w as n on-c onst it ut i onal , how ever, a reversal of t he J u dg m ent ag ai nst A ppel lant i s j ust i fi ed i f a subst ant i a l ri g ht of Appel l ant ’s

w as a ffec t ed. S e e , T

e x . R
. A p p . P r o c . 4 4
. 2 (

b )
. “A s u b s t a nt i a l ri ght i s affec t ed

w hen t he error h ad a subst ant i al and i nj uri ous effec t or i nfl uenc e i n det erm i ni ng t h e j ury ’s verdi c t .” K i n g v S t a t e a t 2 7 1 ; (c i t i ng K o t t e a k o s v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 2 8 65U
. S
. 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 ( 1 9 4 6 ) ) A c ourt m ay c onsi der m any fac t ors i n det erm ini ng w het h er t he probat i ve val ue of t he evi denc e is subst ant i al l y out w ei g hed by t he dang er of unfai r prej udi c e, i nc l udi ng : the num ber of ex h i bi t s offered, t hei r g ruesom eness, t hei r det ai l , t hei r si ze, w het her t hey are i n c ol or or bl ac k and w hi t e, w het her t hey a re
c l ose-up, and whet her t he body depi c t ed i s c l ot hed or naked. W y a t t v S t a t e , 2 3 S
. W
. 3 d 1 8 , 2 9 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0

) ( c it i ng L on g v S t a t e a t 2 7 2 ). “A c ourt , how ever, s h o u l d not be l im i t ed by t hi s l i st . T he avai l abi l it y of ot her m eans of proof and t h e c i r c u m s t a nc es uni que t o eac h i ndi vi dual c a se shoul d al so be

c onsi dered.” I d
. A s s t at ed above, t he pi c t ures w ere i n c ol or. T hey w ere g ruesom e. T hei r adm i ssi on w as unnec essary t o show t he c h i l d’s inj uri es w hi c h had been det ai l ed by t h e m edi c al ex am i ner. Appel lant assert s t hat t he S t at e offered t hem sol el y to i n fl am e t he j ury ag ai nst hi m and render i t m ore l i kel y t h at he w oul d ul t i m at el y be assessed a deat h sent enc e . C learl y t he adm issi on of t w o
suc h prej udi ci al phot og raphs of t he brai n of an ei g ht -y ear-ol d c hi l d subst ant i al l y i nfl uenc ed t he j ury ’s verdi c t of g ui l t and sent e nc e of deat h. A s a resul t , A ppel l a nt request s t hat t hi s C ourt sust a i n poi n t s of error ei ght and ni ne, reverse t he t ri a l

c ourt ’ s Judg m ent , and rem and hi s c ase t o t he t ri al c ourt w i t h i n st ruc t i o n s t h at 66he rec ei ve a new t ri al
.

67P O I N T O F E R R O R T E N T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT I ON T O DE C LA RE THE “1 0 -1 2 ” RU LE U NC ONS TIT U T I ONA L ON THE G R O U N D S T H A T I T C R E A T E S A N IM PE RM I SS IBLE RIS K OF A RBI T RA RY IM POS IT ION OF T HE D E A T H PE NA LT Y
. ( C R
. I
- 1 8 7
- 2 1 7 ; R R
. V

- 7 9
- 8 0 )
. A ppel l ant arg ued in hi s m ot i on t hat t he “1 0 -1 2 Rul e ” u n c o nst it ut i onal l y prevent s a si ng l e juror from g i vi ng effec t t o hi s b el i ef t hat a m i ti g at ing fac tor

m i l i tat es ag ai nst t he i m posi t i on of t he deat h penal t y . A r t i c l e 3 7
. 0 7 1 , § 2 ( d ) (2 ) requi res t he t ri al court t o c harg e t he j ury t hat i t m ay not an s w e r a n y i ssue subm i t t ed under s u b s e c t i o n (b ) “y es” unl ess i t ag rees unani m ousl y , and i t m ay not a n sw er any i ssue “no” unl ess t en or m ore j urors ag ree. In the e vent t he j ury i s unabl e t o answ er ei t h e r t he fut ure dang er or part i es q uest i on, a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 , § 2 (g ) , t he c ourt shal l sent enc e t he defendant t o c onfi nem e nt for l i fe i m pri sonm ent w i t h out t he possi bi l i t y of parol e. In c a p i t al c ases, t h e S uprem e C ourt i s c om mi t t ed to ensuri ng t hat t here i s suffi ci ent proc e ss to “g uarant ee, a s muc h as i s hum anl y possi bl e, t h a t t he sent enc e w as not i mposed out of w h i m ... or m i st ake. E d d i n g s v O k l a h o m a , 4 5 5 U
. S
. 1 0 4 , 1 1 8 ( 1 9 8 2 ) (O’C onnor, J., c onc urr i ng ) (overrul e d on ot her g rounds). 68T he T e x as deat h penal t y st at ut e affi rm at i vel y creat es c onfusi on i n t he mi nds of

t h e j urors. Jurors are fi rst t o l d t h a t t h e j ury as a w hol e “shal l ” answ er “y es” or “no” t o eac h i ssue present ed; t hey are subsequent l y t ol d t h at ten or m ore j urors
m ust be in ag reem e nt t o g i ve one set of answ ers and t ha t t h e y m u s t be unani m ous i n order t o g i ve anot her. T hi s n ec essari ly rai ses t he q uest i on of w h at happens i n the e vent t hat t he j ury , despi t e bei ng i nst ruc t ed t hat i t m ust answ er
eac h quest i on, i s unabl e t o g et t he m i ni m um num ber of vot es requi red t o g i ve ei t her answ er. T he st a t ut e cl earl y provi des that in the event of a n on-answ er, t he d e f e n d a n t is t o rec ei ve t hat w hi c h i s subst ant i vel y i dent ic al t o t hat w hi c h h e

w oul d ha v e r e c ei ved had t here been a verdi c t in favor of l ife, and t hus t he l aw i t sel f ex hi bi t s no confusi on wi t h reg ard t o t he si tuat ion present ed. How ever, n ot onl y does t he st at ut e fai l t o do al l t hat i s hum anl y possi bl e t o e n d ure t h at dec i si ons reg ardi ng li fe and deat h are not made as a resul t of t hat m a nufac t ured

c onfusi on -- i t ac t i vel y prohi bi t s a ny c lari fi c at i on of t he c onfusi on by prevent i ng j urors from bei ng i nform ed at any poi nt of t he effec t of a non-answ e r. D eat h penal t y c ases are requi red to be subj ec ted t o g reat er c onst i t ut i onal prot ec t i ons t han t hose a ppl ied t o non-deat h penal t y c ases (“deat h i s di fferent ”). E d d i n g s v O k l a h o m a , 4 5 5 U
. S
. 1 0 4 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; L oc k e t t v O h i o , 4 3 8 U
. S
. 5 8 6 69( 1 9 7 8

) ; S i m m o n s v S o u t h C a r o l i n a , 5 1 2 U
. S
. 1 5 4 ( 1 9 9 4 )
. S e e a l s o , M i l l e r v A l a b a m a , 5 6 7 U
. S
. , 1 3 2 S
. C t
. 2 4 5 5 ( 2 0 1 2 ) ; G r a h a m v F

l o r i d a , 5 6 0 U
. S
. 4 8 (2 0 1 0

) ; K e n n e d

y v L o u i s i a n a , 5 5 4 U
. S
. 4 0 7 (

2 0 0 8 ) ; B a z e v R e e s , 5 5 3 U
. S
. 3 5 ( 2 0 0 8 )
. S e e a l s o J i m e n e z v S t a t e , 3 2 S
. W
. 2 d 2 3 3 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0

); E x p a r t e T u c k e r , 9 7 3 S
. W

. 2 d 9 5 0 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8

) ; M o r r i s v S t a t e , 9 4 0 S
. W
. 2 d 6 1 0 ( T

e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6

) ; A n d e r s o n v S t a t e , 9 3 2 S
. W

. 3 d 5 0 2 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6

)
. T he resul t of m i si nform i ng j urors and forc i ng t hem to del i b erat e w i t hout know l e dg e of w hat h a ppens i n t he event of a n on-answ er i s t hat t hey a re present ed w i t h a fal se di l em m a. Jurors are g i ven g eneral i n st ruc t i ons t hat they

m ust a n sw er ei ther “y es” or “no” t o t h e i ssues before them , and spec i fi c i nst ruc t i ons t hat defi ne the m i ni m um num ber of vot es requi red t o gi ve eac h of t h e se a spec i fi c answ er. Bec ause t hey are t ol d t hat a deat h sent e n c e fol l ow s from one set of a n sw ers, and a l i fe sent e n c e fol l ow s from anot her, a reasonabl e j uror m i g ht c onc l ude t hat t he onl y w ay t o g et ei t her of t hese puni shm ent s i s t o
answ er t he quest i ons pos e d t o t h em . S e e , C a l i f o r n i a v B r o w n , 4 7 9 U
. S
. 5 3 8 , 5 4 1 ( 1 9 8 7

) (quot i ng F

r a n c i s v F r a n k l i n , 4 7 1 U
. S
. 3 1 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( h ol di ng t hat t he

c onst i t ut i onal suffi c i enc y of c api t al sent enc i ng i n st ruc t i ons i s det er m i n e d by 70“w hat a reasonabl e j uror c oul d have underst ood t he c harg e as m eani ng ).” T hi s

l eaves jurors free t o spec ul at e as t o w hat w oul d oc c ur shoul d t h ey be unabl e t o provi de an answ er t o t he i ssues. Whi l e i t i s possi bl e t hat jurors m i g ht c orrec t l y g uess t hat t he fai lure t o ag ree w i l l resul t i n a l i fe sent enc e , i t i s p erhaps m ore l i kel y t h at t hey w i l l conc l ude t hat a non-answ er w i l l l ead to a lesser sent enc e, a
c ost l y ret ri al or resent e n ci ng proc eedi ng , or a bsol ut e freedom for the defendant
. Gi ven t hat eac h of t he j urors has al ready found t he defendant g ui l t y of a c api t a l offense, none of t hose opt ions w oul d l ook desi rabl e t o a juror w ho hon est l y bel i e ves t hat a l i fe sent enc e i s w arrant ed. J urors are l eft to del iberat e w i t h t he fal se bel ief that i f t hey are unabl e t o g ai n unani m i t y for a deat h sent enc e or t en
or more vot es for a l i fe sent enc e, an al t o g e t her thi rd opt i on w i l l resul t . In S i m m on s v S o u t h C a r o l i n a a t 1 7 1 , t he S uprem e C ourt prohi bi t ed j ust t hi s sort of unfai rness, hol di ng t hat “[ t ] h e S t at e m a y not c reat e a fal se di lem m a by advanc i ng g ene r a l i z e d a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e d e fendant ’s fut ure dang erousness w hi l e , at t h e sam e t i me, prevent i ng t he j ury from l earni ng t h at t h e defendant never w il l be rel eased on parol e.” In S c a l e s v S t a t e , 3 8 0 S
. W
. 3 d 7 8 0 ( T

e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) , a non-deat h penal t y c ase, t he C ourt deal t w i t h a request from t he j ury forem an t hat a j uror, 71w ho al l eg edl y w oul d not part i c i pat e i n the del i berat i ons, be rem oved. The t ri a l

c ourt , aft er h e ari ng from t he forem an, i ndi cat ed i nt e n t t o rem ove t he juror and seat an al t ernat e. T he defendant request ed t hat t he t ri al c ourt quest i on t he j uror but t he c ourt refused. Inst e a d, t he c ourt quest i oned t he forem an a g a i n a nd, aft er fi ndi ng hi m c redi bl e, rem oved t h e j uror of w hi c h c om pl ai nt w as m ade and repl ac ed her w i t h an al t ernat e. T he C ourt of A ppeal s reversed and rem anded. S c a l e s v S t a t e , N o . 0 1
- 0 8
- 0 9 3 2
- C R ( T

e x . Ap p . - - H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t
. ] D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) (n ot d e s i

g n a t e d f or p u b l i c a t i on ) , s l i p op . a t 7
. A ft er t he S t at e fi l e d a pet i t i on for di sc ret i onary revi ew , t he C ourt of Appeal s w i t hdrew i t s ori g i nal opi ni on and, pursuant t o R u l e 5 0 , T e x . R
. A p p . P r o c . , issued anot her opi ni on. T he sec ond opi ni on reac hed t he

sam e resul t as the fi rst . S c a l e s v S t a t e , N o. 0 1
- 0 8
- 0 9 3 2
- C R ( T e x. A p p . - - H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i

s t
. ] A p r i l 1 4 , 2 0 1 1

) ( n o t d e s i g n a t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n )
. T he C ourt g rant e d t he S t at e ’s pet i t i on for di sc ret i onary revi ew from t he sec ond opi ni on. T he t ri al c ourt i n S c a l e s had found t he j uror t o be di sabl ed, nec essi t at i ng

a st udy of t he requi re m e n t s of a r t
. 3 6
. 2 9 T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 9 ) rel at i ng t o a di sabl ed j uror. A c c ordi ng t o t he forem a n’s t est i m ony before t h e t ri al c ourt , t h e j uror i n q uest i on had t aken int o ac c ount t he fac t s and l aw and 72had m ade up h e r m i nd, refusi ng t o t al k about “her si de” of t he case or t ake i n t o

ac c ount ot hers’ vi ew s. T he C ourt c harac t eri zed t he e vi denc e rel at i ng t o t he j ury ’s del i berat i ons as:

T h e forem a n t w i c e t est i fi ed as t o w hat “w e” di d in a c ont ex t t hat i ndi c at es t ha t “w e” i s the el e ven j urors ot her t han C ol l ins. T he forem a n’s st at em ent t hat bot h reasons nam ed by t he t ri al c ourt a p p l i ed, c om bi ned w i t h hi s st a t em ent t hat “[s]he w i l l not t al k about the fac t s of t he case as we perc ei ved duri n g test i m ony ,” at l east tends t o show t hat C ol l i ns’s perc e pt i ons a bout the evi denc e w ere not shared by t h e o t her el even j urors, t hat she di d not ag ree w i t h t he ot her el even t hat the c ont ent s o f t he read bac ks w e re “fac t ,” t hat she had m ade a dec i si on about w hat t he evi denc e proved, and t hat h e r refusal t o del i berat e w as ac t ual l y a r e fusal t o c hang e her m i nd. T h a t p ossi bi l it y w as not ex pl ored before t he t ri al court rem oved C ol l i ns from t he j ury . We fi nd t hat t he t ri al c ourt had i n suffi c i ent i nf o r m a t i on from wh i c h t o det erm i n e t hat C ol l ins w as not abl e t o perform her dut i es as a j uror. T he t ri al c ourt erred w hen i t repl ac ed C ol l i ns w i t h an a l t ernat e w i t hout asc ert ai ni ng C ol l i ns’s reasons for “not del iberat i ng . ” S c a l e s , s l i p o p . a t 9
- 1 0
. [ f o o t n o t e om i t t e d

]
. T he C ourt rec og ni zed t hat the tri al c ourt ’s ac t i on i n repl ac i n g t he hol dout j uror affec ted t he defendant ’s subst ant ial ri g ht to a unani m ous jury a nd t hus, t he

error had a subst a n t ial and inj uri ous e ffec t or i nfl uenc e i n det erm ini ng t he j ury ’s

73verdi c t , and w as, t h e r e f o r e, reversi bl e error. S c a l e s , s l i p o p . a t 1 0
. T hi s

rec og ni t i on, t h a t error c om m i t t ed duri ng j ury del i berat i ons, i nc l udi ng pressures p u t on t hose m em bers of t he j ury w ho are hol di ng out ag ai nst an e v e n
overw hel m i ng m aj ori t y , i m pl i c at es s u b s t a n t i a l a nd c onst i t ut i onal l y based ri g ht s, and c an be error, c an not be i g nored i n t he i n st ant c ase. T he C ourt w rot e, “We fi nd t hat t he t ri al c ourt had insuffi c i ent i nform at i on from w hi c h t o det e rm i ne t hat C ol l i ns w a s n o t a bl e t o perform her dut i es as a j uror.” In doi n g s o , t h e C o urt set a st a ndard for t ri al c ourt s to fol low w hen d e a l i n g wi t h pot e nt ial i nt e rferenc e wi t h i n di vi dual j urors by ot h er m em bers o f t h e j ury . T h e st andard, i nform ed and requi red by t he C onst i tut i on, appl i e s i n nondeat h penal ty c as e s , a n d i s requi red t o assure the defendant ’s c onst i t ut i onal ri g ht s w ere prot ec t e d. T hat t he prot ec t i ons ac c orded in t he def endant i n S c a l e s m ust be

ac c orded t o those fac i n g t h e d e a t h penal t y , as a m at t er of c onst i t ut i onal i m perat ive, c an not be seri ousl y arg ued. T he proc edure found t o be requi red by t h e subst ant i al ri g ht s i m pl i c at ed i n S c a l e s m ust be c onsi dered by t hi s C ourt in addressi ng t h is c l ai m . T he C ourt ’s opi ni on i n S c a l e s , s u p r a , dem onst rat e s t hat deat h penal t y 74c ases i n T ex as are t reat ed i n t he ex ac t opposi te m anner, w i t h t h e “1 0-1 2 Rul e”

operat ing t o deny deat h penal t y defendant s t he revi ew m andat ed by S c a l e s in non-deat h penal ty c a ses. A s suc h, t he “1 0 -1 2 Rul e” vi ol at es t he C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , as wel l as t he S uprem e C ourt ’s “deat h i s di fferent ” di rec t i ves. C onsequent l y , t he “1 0 -1 2 Rul e” c an not st and. D eat h penal t y c ases are requi red to be subj ec ted t o g reat er c onst i t ut i onal prot ec t i ons t han t hose a ppl ied t o non-deat h penal t y c ases (“deat h i s di fferent ).” E d d i n g s , s u p r a ; L oc k e t t

, s u p r a ; S i m m o n s , s u p r a . It i s c l e a r now t hat , as i t p e r t ai n s t o j ury del i berat i ons and inst ruc t i ons, T ex as defendant s c h arg ed wi t h

c api t al m urder are afforded l esser prot ec t i ons t han a re requi red by t he C onst i t ut i on of the U ni t ed S t at es and appl i ed t o non-deat h penal t y defendant s.

75P O I N T O F E R R O R E L E V E N A R T IC L E 3 7
. 0 7 1 O F T

H E T E X A S C O D E O F C R I M I N A L P R O C E D U R E I S U NC O NS TIT U T I ONA L BE C AU S E IT F A ILS T O PLA C E T HE BU RD E N O F PROOF O N THE S T A T E R E G A R D I N G A G G R A V A T I N G E VID E NC E
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V
- 6 8 )
. A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S T he t ri al c ourt overrul ed A ppel l a nt ’ s Mot i on t o Prec l ude t he D eat h Penal t y
as a S ent enc i n g Opt i on and to d e c l are a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 9

) unc onst i t ut i onal for shi ft i ng t he burden of proof on m i t i g at i on t o A ppel l ant . ( R R
. V

- 6 8 ). T he t ri al c ourt al so overrul e d Appel l ant ’s M ot i on t o De cl are A r t i c l e 3 7
. 0 7 1 U n const i t ut i onal bec ause it pl ac es t h e m i t ig at ion bur d e n of proof on t he defendant
. T e x . C r i m . P r oc . C o d e a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 § 2 ( e ) a n d ( f ) requi re a jury w hi c h has c onvi c t ed a defendant of c api t al m urder, i n a c ase in

w hi c h t he S t at e i s seeki ng t he deat h penal t y, t o be c harg ed as fol l ow s:

(e) (1 ) T h e c ourt shal l i nst ruc t t h e j u ry t hat i f the j ury ret urns an affi rm at ive fi ndi ng t o eac h i ssue subm i t t ed under S u b sec t i on 9 b) of thi s art i c l e, i t shal l a ns w er t he fol l ow i ng i ssue: Whet h er, t a ki n g i nt o c onsi derat ion al l of t he evi denc e, i n c ludi ng the c i rc um st a nc e s of t h e o f f e n s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c h arac t er and bac kg round, and t he personal m oral c ul pabi l it y of t he defend a nt , t hee is a suffi c i ent m it i g at i ng 76c i rc um st a nc e or c i rc um st anc es t o w a rrant t hat a s e n t e n c e of l i fe i m pri sonm ent rat h er t han a deat h sent enc e be i m posed. . ..

(f) T he c ourt shal l c harg e t he j u r y that i n answ eri n g the i ssue subm i t t ed under S ubsec t i on (e) of t hi s art ic l e , t he j ury :

(1 ) shal l answ er t he i ssue “y es” or “no;” (2 ) m ay n ot answ er t he issue “no” unl ess i t ag rees unani mousl y and m a y not an s w e r t he i ssue “y es” unl ess 1 0 or m ore j urors ag ree;

(3 ) nee d not a g ree on what part i c ul ar evi denc e support s a n affi rm at i ve fi ndi ng on t he i ssue; and (4 ) shal l c onsi der m i t i gat i ng evi denc e t o be evi denc e t hat a j uro r m i g ht reg ard as reduc i ng the defendant ’s m oral bl am ew ort hi n ess. T hi s st at ut e is unc onst i t ut i onal bec ause it i m perm i ssi bl y shi ft s the burden of proof on m i t i g a ti on t o t he defendant
. T he st at ut e requi res t he j ury t o c onsi der, al ong w i t h m i t i gat ing evi denc e, the “m oral c ul pabi l i t y of the defendant ,” havi ng j ust found t he defendant g ui lt y of t he offense, bey ond a reasonabl e doubt
. T he st at ut e t hen dem ands t hat t he defense produc e “ s u f fi c i ent ” mi t i g at i on (w hi l e
c onsi deri ng t h is sam e “m oral c ul pabi l it y )” t o w arrant a sent enc e of l i fe i m pri sonm ent . T he m i t i g at i n g evi denc e m ust be “suffi c i ent ” t o reduc e t he defendant ’s m oral c ul pabi l i t y or bl am ew ort hi ness as al ready est abl i shed i n t he j urors’ mi nds. In deat h penal t y del i berat i ons, “m oral c ul pabi l i t y” i s not evi denc e ;

77i t i s a fi n di ng t hat the j ury has al ready m ade. T he st at ut e pl a c e s a n unfai r,

undue, and unc onst it ut i onal e m phasi s on t hat fi ndi ng . The defendant , i f he i s t o
save hi s ow n li fe, m ust offer evi denc e t hat i s som ehow g reat e r than the fi ndi ng of m oral c ul pabi l i t y bey ond a reasonabl e doubt
. A si d e f r o m s hi ft i ng t he burden of proof t o t he defendant , t he st at ut e provi des no ot her g ui danc e t o t he j ury t h at i s c al led upon t o m ake t hi s l i fe and deat h dec i si on. A s a resul t , t he deat h penal t y i s i m posed i n a w ant on haphazard

m anner i n vi ol at i on of t he defendant ’s ri ght s t o due proc ess and prot ec t i on from

c ruel and unusual puni shm ent . T h i s i m perm issi bl e shi ft of t he burden t o t he defense i s m ade m o r e
unc onsc ionabl e by t h e l ang uag e of T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 ( 2 ) ( f )

w hi c h provi des t hat t he j ury shal l n ot answ er t he m i ti g at i on i ssue “y e s” (resul ti ng i n a l ife sent enc e) unl e ss t e n or m ore j urors ag ree. T he defense, ac c ordi ng t o t he i nst ruc t i ons t o t he jury , must t h e n o f f e r “suffi c i ent ” m it i g at i ng evi denc e t o n ot onl y overc om e hi s “m oral c ul pabi l i t y ” as al ready est abl i shed i n t he ey es of t he j ury , but t en of t h ose j u r o r s m ust be c onvi nc e d of t he suffi c i enc y of t h at evi denc e. U nder t he “ d u e course of t he l aw ” provi si on of t h e T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n , 78A r t i c l e I § 1 0 , t he c i t i zens of t hi s st at e are g uarant eed t hat any puni shm ent for

an offense w i l l be i n ac c ordanc e w i t h t he l aw . M c F a r l a n e v S t a t e , 2 5 4 S
. W

. 2 d 1 3 6 (T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 5 3 )
. When the burden of proof i s s h i f t e d t o t he defendant , t he S t at e’s burden has e s s e n t i a l l y b e e n r e d u ce d
. S ee e . g
. , C o b a r r u b i o

v S t a t e , 6 7 5 S
. W

. 2 d 7 4 9 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t , L a w r e n c e

v S t a t e , 7 0 0 S
. W

. 2 d 2 0 8 ( T

e x . C r i m . Ap p . 1 9 8 5

) , and E l l i o t t v S t a t e , 8 5 8 S
. W
. 2 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 7
- 8 8 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 )
. T hi s puni shm ent , based on a reduc ed burden, vi ol at es T e x as l aw and Federal c onst i t ut i onal due proc ess g uarant ees. M oreover, the effec t of t he st at ut ory sc hem e i s t o requi re t he d e f e n d a n t not m erel y t o assum e a burden of provi ng mi t i gat i on, b u t t o dem onst rat e
m i t i g at i on suffi c i ent t o out w ei g h the j u r y ’ s pre-ex i st ing affi rm a t i ve fi ndi ng , bey ond reasonabl e doubt , of t he a gg ravat i ng fa c t o r of fut ure dang erousness. A ppel l ant is aw a re of t he e x ist enc e of adverse aut hori ty in t hi s m at t er. S e e , e . g
. , T h r e a d g i l l v S t a t e , 1 4 6 S
. W

. 3 d 6 5 4 , 6 7 1 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ; K

a n s a s v M a r s h , 5 4 8 U
. S
. 1 6 3 (

2 0 0 6 )
. ( r u l i n g t hat t here i s no vi ol a t i on where t he defendant i s requi red t o prove m i t i g at i ng c i rc um st anc es suffi c i e n t l y subst ant i a l t o c al l for l e ni enc y ), but nonet hel ess c ont end that t h ese i ssues m eri t t he C ourt ’s

c onsi derat i on. 79Pursuant t o T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 4
. 2 (

a ) , i f there i s c onst i t ut i onal error, t he appel l at e c ourt m ust reverse un l e s s i t det erm i nes bey ond a reasonabl e doubt t h a t the error di d n ot c ont ri but e t o t he c onvi c t i on and vi ol at es t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n . U
. S
. C o n s t
. a m e n d
. X IV
.

80P O I N T O F E R R O R T W E L V E T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A PPE LLA NT ’S M OT ION T O PRE C L U D E THE IM POS IT ION O F T HE D E A T H PE NA LT Y ON GROU ND S T HA T T HE IND IC T M E NT F A ILE D T O C O N T A I N A N Y A L L E G A T I O N S RE GA RD ING T HE PU NIS HM E NT S PE C IA L IS S UE
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V
- 6 8 ). A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S T he t ri al court al so overrul ed A ppel l ant ’s M ot i on t o D ec l are A r t i c l e 3 7
. 0 7 1 U nc onst i t ut i onal c ont endi ng i n part t hat t he i ndi c t m ent w as c onst it ut i onal l y defec t i ve bec a use i t di d not al l eg e ag g ravat i ng fac t ors or fut ure dang erousness. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V

- 6 8 ). D efense c ou nsel request ed t hat t he S t at e be prec l uded from seeki n g t h e deat h penal t y ag ai nst A pp el l a nt bec ause t he i ndi c t m e nt di d n ot a ll eg e t he ex i st enc e of t h e s t a t ut ory spec i al i ssues and t he support i ng f a c t s nec e ssary t o i m pose a deat h sent enc e in vi ol at i on of A ppel l ant ’s S i

x t h A m e n d m e n t ri g ht t o t ri al by j ury . R i n g v A r i z on a , 5 3 6 U
. S
. 5 8 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ) t e ac hes t hat c a pi t al defendant s, no l ess t han nonc api t al defendant s, a re ent i t led under t h e S i

x t h A m e n d m e n t t o a j ury det erm i n at ion of any fac t on w hi c h

a l eg i sl a t ure has condi t i oned an i n crease in t he defendant ’s m a x i m um puni shm ent . S i nc e the fac t s whi c h w ere rel i ed on i n order to seek deat h ag ai nst 81A ppel l ant w ere not c ont ai n e d i n t he i ndi c t m ent , and the st a t ut ory spec i al i ssues,

as st at e d el sew here i n t h is bri ef, w e re t ot al l y undefi ned for t he j u r y , t h e r e c an not i n any way have been a meani ng ful j ury verdi c t i n t hi s c ase i n t he sense t h at R i n g requi res. A ppel l a n t i s aw are of t he ex i st enc e of a dverse aut h ori t y from t h i s C ourt addressi ng t h is i ssue. S e e , e . g
. , P e r r y v S t a t e , 1 5 8 S
. W

. 3 d 4 3 8 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ; W

o o d s v S t a t e , 1 5 2 S
. W

. 3 d 1 2 1 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ; R a y f o r d v S t a t e , 1 2 5 S
. W

. 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 3 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) , but nonet hel ess cont ends t ha t t h e se i ssues m eri t t he C ourt ’s rec onsi derat ion. B o yc e v S t a t e , N o . 0 4
- 0 4
- 0 0 2 6 7
- C R ( T

e x . Ap p . - - S a n A n t o n i o , J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 0 5

) 2 0 0 5 T e x . A p p . L E

X I S 5 3 9 5 ( m e m . o p . ) (

S t o n e , J
. c o n c u r r i n g

) (not i ng t hi s C ourt had not y et addressed t he A p p r e n d i / B L A K E L Y requi rem ent t hat every fac t l e g al l y e ssent i al to puni shm ent be c harg ed i n t h e i ndi c t m e n t and proven t o a j ury ).

82P O I N T O F E R R O R T H I R T E E N T HE T RIA L C OU RT E RRE D IN OVE RRU LING A P P E L L A N T ’ S O B J E C T I O N T O T H E A PPLIC AT ION OF T E XA S ’ D E A T H PE NA LT Y S C H E M E B E C A U S E I T H A S B E E N A RBIT RA RILY IM P OS E D IN VIOLA T ION O F T H E E I G H T H A N D F O U R T E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N
. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 7
- 5 0 ; R R
. V
- 6 8
- 6 9 )
. A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S T he t ri al c ourt overrul ed A ppel l ant ’s M ot i on t o Prec l ude t he D eat h Penal t y
as a S ent enc i ng Opt ion on E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t g rounds. ( C R
. I
- 1 4 7
- 5 0 ; R R
. V
- 6 8
- 6 9 )
. In vi ew of t he m any di fferent c api t al sent enc i ng sc h em es t h at have been i n operat i on i n T ex as i n t he post - Fur m a n e ra, t he T ex as deat h penal ty has been arbi t rari l y im posed and t hus, i s unc onst i tut i onal under t h e E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

s . Of t he m any hundreds of pers o n s s ent enc ed to deat h in T ex as si nc e t he “m odern” c api t al sent enc i ng s t a t u t e w as enac t e d, t h e vast m a j ori t y w ere sent enc ed under jury i nst ruc t i ons t hat si m pl y t rac ked t he unadorned “spec i a l i ssues” c ont ai ned i n t h e ori g i nal versi on of a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 (b ) T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 9

)
. S e e g e n e r a l l y , P
. M
. M c C l u n g , “ J u r y C ha r g e s f o r T e x a s

83C r i m i na l P r a c t i c e ” 7 5 - 7 8 ( r e v . e d
. 1 9 8 1 )
. Aft er t he l andm ark dec isi on i n P e n r y

v L y n a u g h , 4 9 2 U
. S
. 3 0 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t o n o t h e r g r o u n d s ) , h ow ever, t h e c onsi st enc y i n T ex a s c a pi t al sent enc i ng i nst ruc t i o ns qui ckl y di sappeared, bot h a s a resul t of leg i sl at i ve ac t i on and unsupervi sed j udi c i a l i m provi si ng by t he t ri al court s. S e e g e n e r a l l y , P e g g y M
. T o b o l o w s ky , “ W h a t H a t h P e n r

y W r o u g h t ? : M i t i g a t i n g C i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d t h e T e x a s D e a t h P e n a l t

y , ” 1 9 A M E R
. J
. C R I M
. L
. 3 4 5 ( 1 9 9 2 )
. I n 1 99 1, t he T ex as Leg i sl at ur e enac t ed an am ended, post - P en r y versi on of a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 , w hi c h m odi fi ed t he “spec i al i ssue” form a t . Roug hl y sp e aki n g, t h e vari ous t y pes of T ex as c api tal sent enc i ng i nst ruc t i ons i n t he post - Fur m a n era c an be broken dow n i nt o seven di fferent

c at eg ori es. 1
. T h e unadorned “spec ial i ssues” in the pre-1 9 9 1 versi on of A r t i c l e 3 7
. 0 7 1
. 2
. T h e 1 9 9 1 am ended versi on of t he st at ut e. 3
. T h e pre-1 9 91 st at ut e w i t h a n ex t ra-st at ut ory “Qui nones”-t y pe i nst ruc t i ons. 4
. T h e pre-1 9 9 1 st a t ut e w i t h an ex t ra-st at i onary “Penry ”-t y pe “fourt h spec i al i ssue.” 845
. T h e pre-1 9 9 1 st at ut e w i t h a “nul l i fi c at i on’ i nst ruc t i on.

6
. T h e pre-1 9 9 1 st at ut e i n w hi c h “del i berat el y ” i s broadl y defi ned. 7
. T h e 1 9 9 3 versi on of t he st at e as appl i e d i n al l c ri m es com m i t t ed on or before A ug ust 3 0 , 1 9 9 1
. In n um erous cases, t he U ni t ed S t at es S uprem e Court has st at ed t hat i t i s “unw i l l ing t o say t hat t here i s any one ri g h t w ay for a S t a t e t o set up i t s c api t a l sent enc i ng sc hem e.” S p a z i a n o v F l or i d a , 4 6 8 U
. S
. 4 4 7 , 4 6 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) (c i ti ng

c ases). The Court h a s st at ed, how ever, that w i thi n a si ng le st at e, t here m ust be

c onsi st enc y i n t he t reat m ent of c api t al defendant s w ho are subj ec t t o t he deat h penal t y . Id
. a t 4 6 0 (“If a st at e has det erm i n ed t h at deat h shoul d be an avai l abl e puni shm ent for c ert ai n c ri m es, t hen i t m ust adm i ni st er t hat penal t y i n a w ay t h at

c an rat ional l y di st i n g ui sh bet w een t hose i ndi vi dual s for w hom deat h i s an appropri at e sanc t ion and t hose for w hom i t i s not ).” T he above di sc ussi on of t he vari ous sent enc i ng sc hem es c onc urrent l y in operat ion i n T ex as, “a di st i nc t s y s t e m ,” G r e g g v G e o r g i a , 4 2 8 U
. S
. 1 5 3 , 1 9 5 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , am pl y dem onst rat e t hat t he p resent T ex as deat h penal t y sy st em i s bei ng i m pl em ent ed i n an “arbi t rary ” m ann e r . A t l e a st even c at eg ori es of si m i l arl y si t uat ed c api t al defendant s have been t reat ed di sparat el y. 85F

e t t e r l y v P a s k e t t

, 9 9 7 F
. 2 d 1 2 9 5 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ), present s an a nal og ous si t uat i on t o t h e i n st ant c ase. In t hat c ase, t he Ni nt h C irc ui t condem ned an i nst anc e of “Furm a n arbi t rari ness” w i t hi n a si ng l e s t a t e ’s c api t al sent enc i ng sy st em . T he C ourt ’s reasoni ng i s c o g e n t a n d shoul d be appl i ed t o T ex as’

ex peri enc e . T he bot t om l i ne i s that T ex as c ourt s a nd t h e st at e Leg i sl at ure, w i t hout any d i s cerni bl e rat i onal basi s, h ave haphazardl y t urned T e xas’ c api t al sent en c i n g

sc hem e i nt o a pat c hw ork q ui l t . Bec ause si m i l arl y si t uat ed T e x a s c api t a l defendant s, i n cl udi ng A ppel lant , have been unj ust i fi abl y sent enc e d t o deat h under radi c al l y di fferent sent enc i ng s c h e me s , t h i s C o u r t m ust vac at e Appel l ant ’s deat h sent enc e. T h e d e c i si on t o w hi ch defendant i s t o be subj ec t e d t o t he deat h penal t y prosec ut i on vari es from count y t o c ount y i n T ex as. A s a resul t , t here are l i kel y t wo hundred and fi ft y-four ( 2 5 4 ) d i fferent met h ods used to det erm i ne w hi c h

c ases shal l be prosec ut ed as c api t al c ases. Oft e n t he dec i si on c an t urn on t he

c ount y ’s w i l l i ng ness t o fund t he defense, t he rac e of st at us of t he defendant , or t h e ag e, sex , rac e, or st at us of t he vi c ti m i n t he c om m uni t y . T he ri g ht t o l i fe i s fundam ent a l
. F u r m a n v G e o r g i a , 4 0 8 U
. S
. 2 3 8 , 2 5 9 86( 1 9 7 2

)
. T he fai l ure of t he S t a t e t o set fort h uni form and spec i fi c st andards t o det erm i ne ag ai nst w hom a deat h sent e n c e wi l l be soug h t renders t he penal t y of deat h one t hat i s w ant onl y and freaki shl y i mpl i ed and t hat i s prohi bi t e d by t h e E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i on . T he need for non-arbi t rary st andards i n t h e appl i c at i on of t he deat h penal t y out w ei g hs any benefi t s of unbounded prosec ut ori al di sc ret i on.

87P O I N T O F E R R O R F O U R T E E N T HE T E XA S D E A T H PE NA LT Y S T A TU TE VIOLA T E S THE JU RY TRIA L GU A RA NT EE O F T H E F O U R T

E E N T H A M E N D M E N T , A S INT E RPRE T E D IN A P P R E N D I V N E W J E R S E Y , R I N G V A R I

Z O N A , B L A K E L Y V W A S H I N G T O N , U N I T E D S T A T E S V B O O K E R , A ND C U N N I N G H

A M V C A L I F O R N I

A B Y FA ILING T O PLA C E U PON THE S T A T E THE B U R D E N O F P R O V I N G B E Y O N D A R E AS O N AB L E DO UB T A N E G A T I V E AN S W E R T O T HE M IT IGA T I ON S PE C IA L IS S U E
. ( C R
. I
1 4 2
- 4 6 ; R R
. V

- 6 8 )
. A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S T h e S i xt h A m e n d m e n t guarant ees a cri m inal defendant t he ri g ht t o a j ury t ri al
. U
. S
. C o n s t
. Am e n d
. V I
. Part and parc el t o the ri g ht t o j ury t ri al g uarant eed under t h e S i

x t h A m e n d m e n t i s t he “ c o m p ani on ri g ht t o have the j ury verdi c t based on proof bey ond a reasona b l e d o u b t .” Ap p r e n d i v N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U
. S
. 4 6 6 , 4 7 8 (

2 0 0 0 ). S e e a l s o , U n i t e d S t a t e s v B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U
. S
. 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S
. C t
. 7 3 8 , 7 4 8 (

2 0 0 5 ) (“It has been set t led t hr o u g hout our hi st ory t hat t he C onst i t ut i on prot ec t s every c ri m i nal defendant ‘ag ai n st c onvi c ti on excep t up on p r oof beyon d a rea s on a ble d oubt of every fac t nec e ssary t o c onst it ut e t he c ri me

w i t h w hi ch he i s c harg ed.’”) (em phasi s added) (quot i ng I n r e W i n s h i p , 3 9 7 U
. S
.
883 5 8 , 3 6 4 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ). T hose ri g ht s are appl i c abl e i n st at e c ourt proc eedi ng s vi a t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t
. E
. g
. , D u n c a n v L o u i s i a n a , 3 9 1 U
. S
. 1 4 5 , 1 5 5
- 5 6 ( 1 9 6 8 )
. T he t ri al co u r t d e n i e d Ap p el l ant ’s pret ri a l m ot i on t hat t he j ury be i nst ruc t ed t h a t the burden of proof w as on t he S t at e of T e xas to show t he a bsenc e of suffi c i ent mi ti g at i ng fac t ors t o w arrant a deat h sent enc e. ( R R
. V
- 6 8 )
. T he U ni t ed S tat es S uprem e Court has squarel y hel d t hat “[i ]f a S tat e m a kes an i nc rease in

a defendant ’s aut h ori zed puni shm ent c ont i ng ent on a fi ndi ng of a fac t , t hat fac t

-- no m at t er how t h e S t at e l abel s i t - - m ust be found by a j ury bey ond a reasonabl e doubt .” R i n g v A r i z o n a , s u p r a (c i ti ng A p p r e n d i , 5 3 0 U
. S
. a t 4 8 2
- 8 3 ). S e e a l s o , U n i t e d S t a t e s v B oo k e r , 1 2 5 S
. C t
. a t 7 5 6 (“A ny fac t ot her t han a pri or
c onvi c t i on w hi ch i s n e c e s s a ry t o support a sent enc e ex c eedi ng t h e m a x i m um aut hori zed by t he fac t s est abl i shed by a . . . j ury verdi c t m ust be . . .proved t o a j ury beyon d a r ea son a ble d ou bt .” (em phasi s added)). T ex a s’ deat h penal t y st at ut e does prec i sel y w hat i s prosc ri bed by t h e S i x t h Am en d m en t a s i nt erpret ed i n A p p r e n d i and R i n g : i t al low s t he S t at e t o obt ai n t he deat h penal t y based upon a fac t ual fi ndi n g -- l a c k of suffi c ient m i t i g at i on -- w i t hout t he j ury havi ng t o fi nd

89t h a t fac t bey ond a reasonabl e doubt
. 1 9

U nder t he T ex as deat h penal t y st at ut e, t he j ury ’s verdi ct of g ui l ty , st andi ng al one, w i t hout furt h e r fac tual fi ndi ng s from t he jury , w il l resul t in a l i fe sent enc e . T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 § 2 ( g ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 9

). Furt h er, even t he j ury ’s a n sw e rs of “y es” t o t he fi rst t w o spec i al i ssues c oupl ed w i t h t he g ui l t y verdi c t , st andi ng al one w i thout a furt her fac tual fi ndi ng on the m i t i g at i on i ssue,
c o u l d n o t resul t i n a deat h sent enc e . I d
. I n thi s m anner, l ac k of adequat e
m i t i g at i on bec om es t he “func t ional e q ui val ent of an el em en t o f a g reat er offense.” R i n g

, 1 2 2 S
. C t
. a t 2 4 4 3 ; Ap p r e n d i , 5 3 0 U
. S
. a t 4 9 4 n . 1 9
. T herefore, i t m ust be proven by t h e S t at e b e y o n d a reasonabl e doubt
. R i n g , 1 2 2 S
. C t
. a t 2 4 3 9
- 4 0 , 2 4 4 3
. In B l a k e l y v W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 2 U
. S
. 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ) , t he defenda n t p l eaded g ui l t y a n d w a s c onvi c t ed by a Washi ng t on t ri al c ourt of t he offense of sec onddeg ree ki dnapi ng . Bl a k e l y , 1 2 4 S
. C t
. a t 2 5 3 4
- 3 5 )
. Under t he appl i c abl e Washi ng t on st at ut e, t he st at ut ory rang e of puni shm ent w a s c onfi n em ent not t o
ex ceed a t erm of y ears ( 1 2 0 m ont hs). I d
. a t 2 5 3 5
. How e ver, under Washi ng t on’s

1 9 Thi s Court consi dered and rej ected t hi s e xact argument i n J o n e s v S t a t e , 1 1 9 S
. W

. 3 d 7 6 6 , 7 9 1 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) c er t d e n i e d , 5 4 2 U
. S
. 9 0 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ), hol di ng there that A p p r e n d i i s appl i cabl e to a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1
. 90S e nt e nc i ng Reform A c t, t he defendant ’ s offense c arri ed a “st andard rang e” of

fort y-ni ne t o fi ft y -t hree m ont h s. I d
. The j udg e c oul d onl y i mpose a s e n t enc e out si de of t hat “st andard rang e,” w hi c h w as c learl y w i t hi n the “st at ut ory rang e of puni shm ent ,” upon maki ng c ert ai n fi n di ng s of fac t. Id
. A f t er a heari ng , t he t ri al j udg e ent e red vari ous fi ndi ng s of fac t , det erm i ned t hat t he defendant ac t ed

w i t h “del i berat e c ruel t y ,” a n d i m posed a sent e n c e of 9 0 m ont hs -- w it hi n t he

“ s t a t ut ory rang e ” of one hundred t w e n t y m ont h s, but si g ni fi c ant l y l ong er t ha n “t he st a ndard rang e” of fort y -ni ne t o fi ft y -t hree m ont hs. Id
. a t 2 5 3 5
- 3 6
. T he defendant ap p e al ed, c l ai m i ng “t hat t hi s sent enc i ng proc edure depri ved hi m of hi s federal c onst it ut i onal ri g ht t o have a j ury det erm i ne beyon d

a r ea s on a ble d oubt al l fac t s l eg al ly essent i al t o hi s sent enc e.” Id
. a t 2 5 3 6 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )
. Wri t i ng for a m aj ori ty of t he C ourt , Just i c e S c al i a hel d t hat : O u r p r e ce d e n t s ma k e c l ear, how ever, t hat t he “st at ut ory m ax i m um for Ap p r en d i purposes i s t he m a x i m um sent enc e a j udg e m ay i m pose s olely on t he ba s is of the fa ct s r eflect ed in t he jur

y ver d ict or ad mit t ed b y t h e d efen d a n t
. . . In ot her words, t h e rel evant “st at ut ory m ax i m um ” i s not t he m ax i m um sent enc e a judg e m ay i m pose aft e r fi ndi ng addi t i onal fac t s, but t he m a x i m um he m ay i m pose w

it hout any addi t i onal fi ndi ng s. When a j udg e i n fl i c t s puni shm ent t hat t he j ury ’s verdi c t al one doe s not al l ow , t he j ury h as not found al l the fac t s “w hi c h the l aw m akes essent ial t o the puni shm ent , ”
. . 91. and t he j udg e ex c eeds hi s proper aut hori t y .

I d
. (c i t at i ons om i tt ed (em phasi s i n ori g i nal ). I n C a l i f o r n i a v C u n n i n g h a m , 1 2 7 S
. C t
. 8 5 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , t he Suprem e C o u r t st ruc k dow n C a li forni a sent enc i ng l aw , hol di n g i t vi ol at ed the S i x t h A m e n d m e n t by al l ow i ng for an upper t erm sent enc e i n a t ri ad sent enc e sy st em i f t h e t ri a l j udg e found ag g ravat ed c irc um st anc es. In B o o k e r

, the S uprem e C ourt addressed t he appl i c at i on of t he reasoni ng of B l a k e l y t o federal sent e n c i n g prac ti c e under t h e U ni t ed S t at e s Sent enc i ng Gui del ines. I n f i n d i ng t hat t he S ent enc i ng Gui del i nes sc hem e of sent enc e enhanc em ent s bei n g found by a j udg e by a preponderanc e of t he e vi denc e i s
unc onst i t ut ional , t hi s C ourt not ed t hat ,

Our prec edent s, [as] w e e x p l ai ned [i n B la kely], m ake cl ear “t hat t he ‘st at u t o r y m ax i m um ’ for Ap p r en di purposes i s the m ax i m um sent e n c e a j udg e m a y i m pose s o lely o n t he ba s is of t he fa ct

s r eflect ed in t he jur

y v e r d ict or a d m it t ed by the d efen d a n t .” B oo k e r , 2 5 S
. C t
. a t 7 4 9 ( q uot i ng B l a k e l y , 1 2 4 S
. C t
. a t 2 5 3 7 (

e m p h a s i s i n
o r i g i n a l ) ). U nder t he T ex as deat h penal t y sc h e m e , A ppel l ant c oul d on ly rec ei ve a deat h sent enc e if al l tw el ve j urors unani m ousl y ag reed t hat t he answ er t o t he 92m i t i g at i on i ssue w as “no.” S e e , T e x . C r i m . P r o c . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1 § 2 ( f ) ( 2 ), 2 ( g ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 1 0

) (j ury must unani m ousl y ag r e e t o a n sw er m it i g at i on quest i on “no” and deat h sent enc e c an onl y be i m posed i f t hey do so. Bec ause t he n eg at i ve ans w e r t o the mi t i g at i on issue w as a fac t fi ndi ng t h a t w as requi red t o i m pose a deat h se n t e n c e on A ppel l ant , t he l ac k of

m i t i g at i n g c i rc um st anc e s was a fac t “w hi c h t he l aw m akes essent i al t o t he puni shm ent . I d
. A c c o rdi ng l y , t h e S i x t h a n d F

ou r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s a s i nt erpret ed in A p p r e n d i , R i n g , B l a k e l y , a n d C u n n i n g h a m requi re t hat t he neg at i ve answ er t o t h e m i t i g at i on quest i on be proven by the St at e bey ond a
r e a s o n abl e doubt
. E
. g
. , Bl a k e l y , 1 2 4 S
. C t
. a t 2 5 4 2 (every “el em ent ” t h e prosec ut or c an al l eg e t o enhanc e puni shm ent i s “an el em ent that a defendant

c a n t h r e a t e n t o c ont est at t ri al and m ake t he prosec ut or prove bey ond a reasonabl e doubt );” B l a k e l y , 1 2 4 S
. C t
. a t 2 5 4 3 (“A s A p p r e n d i hel d, every d e fendant has t he ri g ht t o i n si st t hat t he prosec ut or prove t o a j ury al l fac t s l eg al l y essent i al to the puni shm ent .);” R i n g , 5 3 6 U
. S
. a t 6 0 2 (“If a S t at e m akes

an i nc rease i n a defen d a n t ’ s a ut hori zed puni shm e n t c ont i ng e n t on the fi ndi ng of a fac t , t h a t fac t -- no m at ter how t he S t at e l abel s i t -- m ust be found by a j ury bey ond a reasonabl e doubt ).” 93Reg ardl ess of w het her t here i s no burden on t he m i ti g at i on i ssue or i f t he

burden i s pl ac e d on t he defen d a n t , t h e st at ut e is unc onst i tut i onal bec ause i t fai l s t o pl ac e t he burden on t he S t at e of provi ng a neg a t i v e answ er t o t he i ssue bey ond a reasonabl e doubt
. E
. g
. , B l a k e l y , 1 2 4 S
. C t
. a t 2 5 4 2 ; R i n g , 5 3 6 U
. S
. a t 6 0 2
- 0 3 ).

94P O I N T O F E R R O R F I FT E E N A P P E L L A N T ’ S R I G H T S U N D E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U S E O F T

H E S I X T H A N D F O U R T

E E N T H A M E N D M E N T

S T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T

I T U T I O N WE RE V I O L A T E D W H E N T H E M O T H E R O F D E C E D E NT , ROS IE GONZA LE Z, T ES T I FIE D T O INFORM A T ION PE RT A INING T O A N E X T R A NE OU S OFFE NS E D U RING T H E PU NIS HM E NT S T A GE OF HIS T RIA L. ( R R
. X X X I V
- 2 5
- 2 8 ; X

L
- 3 6
- 3 7 , 6 6

)
. P O IN T O F E R R O R S I X T E E N A P P E L L A N T ’ S R I G H T S U N D E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U S E O F A R T

I C L E 1 , § 1 0 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T

I T U T I O N WE RE V I O L A T E D W H E N T H E M O T H E R O F DE C E D E NT ROS IE GONZA LE Z T E S T IFIE D T O I N F O R M A T I O N P E R T A I N I N G T O A N E XT RA NE OU S OFFE NS E D U R I N G T H E PU NIS HM E NT S T A GE OF HIS T RIA L. ( R R
. X X X I V
- 2 5
- 2 8 ; X

L
- 3 6
- 3 7 , 6 6

)
. P O I N T O F E R R O R S E V E N T E E N R EVE RS IBLE E RROR OC C U RRE D WHE N T H E M O T H E R O F D EC E D E NT ROS IE GONZA L E Z T E S T IFIE D T O I NFORM A T I ON PE RT AIN I N G TO AN E X

TR AN E O US O F FE NS E D U R I NG T HE PU NIS HM E NT S TA GE OF HIS T RIA L IN VIOLA T ION O F T HE HE A RS A Y RU LE
. ( R R
. X X X IV
- 2 5
- 2 8 ).

95A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S A
. T he Fac t s Vi rg i ni a S om m ers, 2 0 t h e m ot her of dec edent Rosi e Gonzal e z, t est i fi ed duri ng t he puni shm e nt phase of A ppel l ant ’s t ri al t hat A ppel l ant had c om m i t t ed

a pri or a ssaul t ag ai nst her daug ht er t hat had oc c urred approx i m a t el y si x m ont h s pri or t o t he present offense. ( R R
. X X X I V
- 2 0
- 2 6 )
. A f t e r d e sc ri bi ng h er observat i ons of her daug ht er’s i nj uri es as w el l as her ac t ions w hi l e at t em pt i ng t o assi st her daug h ter, M s. S om m ers rel at ed t he fol l ow i ng i n pert i nent part : Q. D i d she g et an e m erg enc y prot e c t i ve order? A
. S he di d. Q. A nd w hat di d t hat em erg en cy prot e c t i ve order do? A
. It kept C edri c R ic ks from c om ing t o her apart m ent or t o sc hool w here t he ki ds w ent t o sc hool , w here I w orked, or t o our house. He c oul dn’t c om e around us. Q. S o w as t here - - was t h e re - - w as t h at an order i ssued by a c ourt ?

2 0 Vi rgi ni a Sommers i s a pseudonym. 96A
. Y es. Q. A nd basi c al l y orderi ng C e dri c Ri c ks over here at t he far end of the c ounsel t abl e t o st ay aw ay from y our daug ht er? A
. Y es. Q. Was she - - was he ordered t o st ay aw ay from any one el se? A
. Y es. He w as ordered t o s t ay aw ay from our house, our res i d enc e , the sc hool , t he boy s, - - Q. S o h e wa s o r dered t o st ay aw ay
- - A
. - - and her w ork. A l so, he c oul dn’t c om e t o her w ork. Q. S o he w as ordere d t o s t a y aw ay from h e r, from [Jam es], from [D am i e n], and from [T hom as]? A
. Y es. Q. A nd was he ordered t o st ay aw ay from [Rosi e’s] apart m ent ? A
. Y es. Q. A nd her pl ac e of busi ness?

97A
. E very w here. E ve r yw here she w ent , he c oul d not g o. Q. T he ki ds’ sc hool ? A
. Y es. Q. A nd y our house? A
. Y es. Q. A nd t hat w as i n Novem ber of 2 01 2? A
. Y es. Q. A nd I g uess, event ual ly , t hey g ot - - t hey g ot bac k t og et her; i s t hat ri g ht ? A
. Ye s , b e ca u s e h e k e pt bot h e r i n g her. He kept t a lki ng t o her, c al l ing her and t el l i ng - - [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: E x c u s e m e . E x cuse m e. I’m g o i ng t o obj ec t t o w hat som ebody el se has t ol d t h i s l ady
. I underst and i t ’s hard, but sh e ’ s been adm oni shed by t he C ourt . I’d ask t hat t he -

- f i r s t o f a l l , I ’ d o b j e c t t h a t i t ’ s nonresponsi ve and i t ’s h earsay and it ’s c onfront at i on. T HE C OU RT : S ust ai ned.

98[D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: I ’ d a s k t h e j ury be i nst ruc t e d t o di sreg ard. T HE C OU RT : Jury w i l l di sreg ard t he l ast st at em ent of t he w i tness. [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: A n d I ’ d respec t ful l y ask for a m i st ri al
. T HE C OU RT : D e n i e d.

(R R
. X X X I V
- 2 6
- 2 8 )
. B. T h e Law under t he Federal and S t at e C onst it ut i ons “In al l c ri m i nal pros e c u t i o n s, t he ac c used shal l enj oy t he ri g ht to . . . be

c onfront ed w i t h t he w i tnesses ag ai nst hi m .” U
. S
. C on s t
. A m e n d
. V I
. T hi s proc edural g uarant ee appl i es t o al l st at e prosec ut i ons. P o i n t e r v T e xa s , 3 8 0 U
. S
. 4 0 0 , 4 0 6 ( 1 9 6 5

)
. For the t est i m o n i a l st at em ent s of a w it ness w ho does n ot appear a t t ri al t o be adm issi bl e i n any c ri m i nal prosec ut i on, the w i t ness m ust be unavai l abl e t o t est i fy , a nd the defendant m ust have had a pri or opport uni t y t o
c ross-ex am i ne t he w i t n e ss . C r a w f o r d v W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 1 U
. S
. 3 6 , 6 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ). Whet her a part i c ul ar out -of-c ourt st at em ent i s t est i m oni al or not i s “a quest i on of l aw . ” L a n g h a m v S t a t e , 3 0 5 S
. W
. 3 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 6 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 0

) ; D e L a P a z v S t a t e , 2 7 9 S
. W

. 3 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 3 ( T

e x . C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 9

)
.
99A r t i c l e I , § 1 0 of t h e T e x . C o n s t
. provi des T ex ans w i th a si m i l ar prot ec t i on t o t hat afforded c ri m i n al defendant s under t h e S i x t h Am e n d m e n t : “In al l

c ri m i nal prosec ut ions t he a cc used shal l
. . .be c on f r o n t e d by t he w it nesses ag ai n st hi m . . . .” The C ourt of C ri m i nal A ppeal s has i nt erpret e d t hi s
c onst i t ut i onal provi si on t o m ean “t hat t he w i t nesses on t he part of t he st at e shal l be perso nal l y present w hen t he ac c used i s on t ri al , or that they shal l be

ex a mi ned i n hi s presenc e and be subj ec t t o c ross-ex a m i nat i on by hi m . ” G a r c i a

v S t a t e , 2 1 0 S
. W

. 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 7 8 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 4 8

) ; K e m p e r v S t a t e , 1 3 8 S
. W
. 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 3 8 , o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t b y R o b e r t s o n v S t a t e , 1 4 2 S
. W

. 5 3 3 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 1 1

). As a resul t , t he t est i m ony of M s. S om m ers w as error and i t vi ol at ed A ppel l ant ’s ri g ht s under a r t
. I , § 1 0 o f t h e T e x. C o n s t
. Fi nal l y , bec ause “[t he] ri g ht s t o c onfront and c ross-ex am i n e wi t nesses . . .have l ong been rec og ni zed as essent i al t o due proc ess,” C h a m b e r s v M i s s i s s i p p i , 4 1 0 U
. S
. 2 8 4 , 2 9 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ), A ppel l ant rest a t es and adopt s al l arg um ent s m a de under hi s S i xt h Am e n d m e n t ri g ht s u p r a , ex c ept t hat A ppel l a nt

now al so m akes t hese arg um ent s under t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U
. S
. C o n s t
. , whi ch provi des t hat no st at e shal l “depri ve any person of l i fe, l i bert y, or propert y , w i t h out due proc ess of l aw .” 100C . Harm A n al y si s

Bec ause t he vi ol a ti on of A ppel l ant ’s ri ght t o c onfront and c ross-ex am i ne Rosi e Gonzal ez w as a c onst it ut i onal error, thi s C ourt m ust reverse t he Judg m ent of D eat h unl ess t he C ourt det erm i nes bey ond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he error di d not c ont ri but e to A ppel l ant ’s puni shm ent . T e x . R
. Ap p . P r o c . 4 4
. 2 (

a )
. “When det erm i ni ng w h e t her erroneousl y adm i t ted evi denc e is harm l ess bey ond a reasonabl e doubt , t he quest i on i s no t w h e t her suffi c i e n t evi denc e to c onvi c t

ex ist ed w i t hout t hi s evi denc e, but whet her t here i s a reasonabl e possi bi l i t y t h at t h e erroneousl y adm it t ed evi denc e cont ri but e d t o t h e verdi c t obt a i ned.” J o n e s

v S t a t e , 8 3 3 S
. W

. 2 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 7 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) c e r t
. d e n i e d , 5 0 7 U
. S
. 9 2 1 ( 1 9 9 3 )
. Not onl y di d M s. S om m er s ’ t e s t i m ony vi ol at e Appel l ant ’s

c onst i t ut i onal l y guarant eed ri g ht s t o c onfront and c ross-ex a m i ne t he w it nesses ag ai n st hi m , i t al so cont ri but ed t o hi s puni shm ent , part i c ul a rl y in l i g ht of A ppel l ant ’s t est i m ony on di rec t e x a mi nat i on. A ppel l a nt rel at ed t h at Rosi e had post e d hi s bond and had i nsi st ed t hat he c om e bac k to t hei r apart m ent and hel p rai se t hei r son. T he rec ord refl ec t s: Q. Okay
. A nd so - - and [Rosi e] hel ped y ou g et out of j a i l, ri g ht ?

101A
. Wel l, I had - - I had $5 ,0 0 0 at hom e, so I t ol d her w here t he money w a s , and she sai d, “Wel l , I g ot t o g e t som ebody t o si g n,” bec ause, i n Il li noi s, i t’s a l i t t l e di fferent
. I m ean, al l y ou’ve g ot t o do i s g o t o t he c ount er and g i v e t hem t he m oney , and y ou si gn out . But , here, y ou have t o g et a bai l bondsm an. Y ou have t o - - y ou have t o g o t hroug h a lot m ore det ai l t o g et out of j ai l , so ... Q. S o di d Rox i e h el p y ou g et out of j ai l ? A
. Y es, si r. Q. D i d y ’ al l t ry t o w ork t hi n g s out ? A
. Y es, si r. We - - w e a c t ual l y - - t he appoi nt m ent I m ade wi t h [ a therapi st ], I h a d t o make anot her appoi nt m ent , so I end up c a l l i ng her bac k, and w e m ade anot h e r appoi nt m ent . And t hen I had t o g et i n t ouc h w i t h C PS , bec ause t h ey w ere c al l i ng . S o I w ent up t here and saw t hem
. A n d t ha t ’ s w hen she sai d I saw t hem D ec em ber 1 1 th. S o D ec em ber 12 t h, I ac t ual l y j um ped i n t he prog ram , and I had t o pay for t hat . It w as, l i k e, $ 3 0 0
.

* * * Q. Okay
. A l l ri g h t . And so at som e po i n t - - she had a prot ec t i ve order. S he g ot a prot e c t i ve order, ri g ht ?

102A
. Y es, si r. Q. Okay
. A nd a t som e poi nt , di d she al l ow y ou t o c om e bac k and l i ve w i t h her? A
. I m ean, as soon as I - - as soon as she pi c ked m e up from dow n h ere, I m ean, I w ent st rai g ht bac k t o the apart m ent . ( R R
. X L
- 3 6
- 3 7

)
. On c ross-ex am inat i on A ppel l ant el aborat ed w hat t ranspi red bet w een Rosi e and hi m : Q. Wel l, l e t m e - - l et m e answ er i t

f o r y ou. It ’s [Rosi e’s] faul t y ou vi ol at e d t hat , ri g ht ? A
. No. I m ean, she w ant ed m e t here, and w e - - she - - she - - s he pi c k ed m e up, and she sa i d , “I don’t want y ou t o g o any w here el se. I w ant y ou here.” ( R R
. X L
- 6 6 )
. M s. S om m ers’ t est i m ony of w hat her daug h t er a l l eg edl y t ol d about A ppel l ant ’s ac t ions di rec t l y c ont radi c t Appel l ant ’s t est i mony and frankl y every t hi n g e l s e i n t he rec ord t hat show s t hat Rosi e w a nt e d t o rec onc i l e w i t h A ppel l ant . E very t hi n g el se i n t he rec ord support s thi s c ont e n t i on. A p p e l l a nt 103assert s t hat i t reasonabl e t o assum e t h a t suc h t est i m ony c ont ri but ed t o hi s

deat h sent e nc e. A s a r e s u l t t h e tri al c ourt shoul d have g rant ed defense

c ounsel ’s m ot i on for m i st ri al
. D . T he t est i m ony w as hearsay A ppel l ant rest at es a n d adopt s i n t hi s s e c t i on a l l of t he arg um ent s and appl i c at i ons h e m ade in the t w o previ ous poi nt s of error. How ever, now A p p e l l a n t m akes t hese arg um ent s under T e x . R
. E v i d
. 8 0 2 , w hi c h provi des, in rel evant part , “Hearsay i s n ot adm i ssi bl e e xc ept as provi ded by st at ut e or t hese rul es or by ot her rul es presc ri bed pursuant to st at ut ory aut hori t y .” Whet her an out -of-c ourt st at em ent i s adm i ssi bl e under an ex c ept i on t o the general hearsay

ex cl usi on rul e i s a m a t t er w i t hi n t he t ri al c ourt ’s di sc ret i on. Z u l i a n i v S t a t e , 9 7 S
. W
. 3 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 5 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 )
. Hearsay i s “a st a t e m e n t , ot her t han one m ade by t he dec l arant w hi l e t e st i fy i ng at t h e t ri al or heari ng , offered i n evi denc e t o prove t he t rut h of t he

m at t er assert e d.” T

e x . R
. E v i d
. 8 0 1 ( d )
. “In det erm i ni n g w h e t h er a t ri al c ourt erred in adm i t t ing or ex c l udi ng hearsay e vi denc e . . . a revi ew i n g c ourt l ooks t o
see w het her t h e t r i a l c ourt c l earl y abused i t s di sc ret i on; before t he revi ew i ng

c o u r t m ay reverse t he t ri al c ourt ’s dec i si on, i t m ust fi n d t he tri al c ourt ’s rul i ng 104w as so cl earl y w rong as to l ie out si de t he zone w i t hi n w hi c h reasonabl e peopl e

m i g ht di sag ree.” T

a y l o r v S t a t e , 2 6 8 S
. W

. 3 d 5 7 1 , 5 7 9 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 8

). A s t h e proponent of t he e vi denc e , t he S tat e h ad t he burden t o show t hat i t w a s ei t her not hearsay o r w a s adm issi bl e under a n ex c ept i on t o t he rul e ag ai nst hearsay
. W

i l l ov e r v S t a t e , 7 0 S
. W
. 3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 5
- 4 6 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( f oo t n o t e s o m i t t e d

). T hi s i t fai l ed to do. M s. S om mers’ st at em e n t s w ere i nadm issi bl e hearsay a s i ndi c at i ve of t he t ri al c ourt ’ s sust ai ni ng Appel l ant ’s obj e c ti on bec ause t hey w e re offered t o prove t he t rut h of t he m at t er assert ed. T he adm i ssi on of ot herw i se i nadm i ssi bl e hearsay i s not c onst i t ut i onal

error. W e s t v S t a t e , 1 2 1 S
. W

. 3 d 9 5 , 1 0 4 ( T

e x . A p p . - - F

o r t W o r t h 2 0 0 3 , p e t
.
r e f ’ d )
. The requi si t e harm a nal y si s i s d i f f e r e nt . T e x . R u l e A p p . P r o c . 4 4
. 2 ( b ). When eval uat i ng t he harm caused by erroneousl y adm it t ed hearsay , a revi ew i ng

c ourt “m ust deem t he error h arm l ess i f, aft er revi ew i ng t he e n t i re rec ord, t he

c ourt i s reasonabl y assured the error di d not i nfl uenc e t h e j ury ’s verdi c t or had but a sl i g ht effec t .” D a v

i s v S t a t e , 2 6 8 S
. W

. 3 d 6 8 3 , 7 0 9 ( T

e x . A p p . - - F

o r t W o r t h 2 0 0 8 , p e t
. r e f ’ d

)
. A s st at ed above, t h e t est i m ony w as prej udi c i al and c ont radi c t ed A ppel l ant ’s assert ions t hat t he t w o w ere t ry i ng t o rec onc i l e t h ei r rel at i onshi p. 105T he j ury c oul d have easi l y c onc l uded bec a use of suc h t est im ony t hat A ppel l a nt

w as l y i ng on c ross-ex am i nat i on. T herefore, i t i s reasonabl e t o assum e t hat t he t e st i m ony c ont ri but ed t o t he j ury ’s verdi c t of deat h
. A s a resul t the t ri al c ourt shoul d have g rant e d t he defense m ot i on for m i st ri al
. A pp e l l ant respec tful ly request s that t hi s C ourt sust ai n poi nt s of error fi ft e en, si x t een, and sevent e e n, reverse t he Judg m ent , and rem and hi s c ase t o t h e t ri al c ourt w i t h i n st ruc t i ons t hat he be afforded a new puni shm ent h eari ng .

106P O I N T O F E R R O R E I G H T E E N T HE T RIA L COU RT AB US E D I T S DIS CRE T I ON A ND VIOLA T E D A PPE LLA NT ’S RIGHT S U ND E R T H E C O N F R O N T A T I O N C L A U S E O F T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T

I T U T I O N BY PE RM IT TING T HE S E XU A L A SS A U LT NU RS E E XA M I NE R T O T E ST IFY T O S T A T EM E NT S M A DE BY ROS IE GONZA LE Z RE GA R D I NG A N E XT RA NE OU S OFFE NS E A LLE GE D LY C O MM IT T E D BY A PPE L L AN T. (R R
. X X X V
- 1 1
- 2 0 )
. P O I N T O F E R R O R N I N E T E E N T H E TR I AL C O UR T A BU S E D IT S D IS CRE T I ON A ND VIOLA T E D A PPE LLA NT ’S RIGHT S U ND E R A R T

I C L E 1 , § 1 0 O F T

H E T E X A S C O N S T I T U T I O N B Y P E R M I T T I N G T H E S E XU A L A SS A U L T NU RS E E XA M INE R T O T ES T IFY T O S T A T E M E NT S MA D E BY ROS IE GONZA L E Z RE GA RD I NG A N EXT RA NE OU S OFFE NS E A LLE GE D LY C OM M I T T E D BY A PPE LLA NT
. (

R R
. X X X V
- 1 1
- 2 0 )
. A R G U M E N T A N D A U T H O R I T IE S

A
. T he Fac t s D uri ng t he puni shm ent phase of A ppel l ant ’s t ri al t he S t at e c a l l ed S ex ual A ssaul t Nurse Ex am i ner C y nt h i a C row e t o t est i fy t o w hat Rosi e Gonzal ez had al l eg edl y t ol d her reg ardi n g a n ex t raneous assaul t offense t hat A ppel l ant had

107al l eg edl y c om m i t t ed on Novem ber 1 2 , 2 0 1 2 , approx i m at e ly si x m ont hs before

t h e present offense. T he rec ord refl ec t s: Q. A nd di d y o u ask M s. Sanc hez w hat broug ht her t o the em erg enc y room ? A
. Y es. Q. A nd w hat w as her answ er? [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: Y o u r Honor, I’m g oi ng - - t hat - - I’m goi ng t o have t o obj ec t at t hi s t i m e .

M ay I t a k e t he wi t ness on voi r di re, Y our Honor?

T HE C OU RT : Y ou m ay . VOIR D IRE E XA M INA T ION BY [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: Q. M s. C row e ? A
. U h-huh. Q. Y ou s a i d y ou work i n the em erg enc y room ? A
. Y es. Q. A l l ri g h t . A n d t hi s i s at HE B hospi t a l? 108A
. Y es. Q. How many peopl e do y ou see on a t y pi c al w eek at t he em erg enc y room ?

* * * A
. Probabl y hundreds. Q. A w eek? T housands a mont h? A
. I m ean, I haven’t done the m at h. If y ou’ve done t he m at h, then t hat ’s c orrec t . Q. Y ou see a l ot of peopl e, i s w hat I’m say i ng . A
. Y es, I do. Q. D o y ou have an i ndependent r e c ol l ec t i on of a person by t he na m e o f [Rosi e Gonzal ez]? A
. No. Q. Okay
. S o y ou have no i ndependent rec ol lec t i on of thi s i ndi vi dual t hat w e speak of? A
. No. Q. Okay
. [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: Y o u r H o n o r ,

109I’m g o i ng t o obj ec t . S h e has no i n d e p e n d e n t r e c o l l e c t i o n a n d c a n ’ t rem e m ber. A nd i t ’s al so a c onfront at i on i ssue, S ix t h A m e ndm e n t . T HE C OU RT : Response. [PROS E C U T OR] Fi rst of al l, i t ’ s an ex c ept i on t o t he hearsay rul es, and i t’s not found - - i t ’s not been found by t he c ourt s t o be t est i m oni al hearsay
. It ’s n o n t est i m oni al h e a r s a y , s o i t d o e s n ’ t a f f e c t t h e c onfront at ion c l ause. S ec ond of a l l , sh e has a b u si n ess rec ord i n front of her t hat she c reat ed, and w e have previ ousl y g i ven a c opy t o t he D efense. [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: J u d g e , i t i s t est im oni al , bec ause i t ’s no t som e sort of r e sponse t o pol i c e ac t i vi t y t h at ’ s i mp e n d i n g doom o r a n i n jury i n n at ure. T hi s l ady w orks i n a hospi t al
. Som ebody c om e s i n and t al ks t o her, and t hose i t e m s are prot e c t ed under t h e c onfront at i on c l ause. S o w e obj ec t on t hat basi s. T HE C OU RT : T h a t o b j e c t i o n i s overrul ed. [D E FE NS E C OU NS E L]: C a n we h a v e a runni ng obj ec t i on? T HE C OU RT : T hat ’s g rant ed.

( R R
. X X X V
- 1 5
- 1 7 ). 110M s. C row e t hen rel at ed t o t he j ury from her rec ords what M s. Gonzal ez had

t ol d her happened duri ng an ex t raneous assaul t w hi c h w a s a pendi ng fel ony t h at A ppel l ant had al l eg edl y c om m i t t e d a g ai nst her on Novem ber 12 , 2 0 12
. T he

rec ord refl ec t s: Q. Okay
. M s. C row e, I had a sked

y ou: Y ou had asked [ M s. G onzal ez] w hat broug ht her t o t he em erg e nc y room t hat day . What w as her response? A
. S t rang l ed l ast ni g ht and head w as pounded on t he fl oor.

* * * Q. D i d she indi c a t e t o y ou w ho had done t hat ? A
. I t hi n k , on t h e l ast pag e, i t say s, “Pat i ent st a t es boy fri e n d was arrest e d t h i s m orni ng , and i t happened i n Bedford.” Q. D i d y ou ask, duri n g t he c ourse of y our t ri ag e of [M s. Gonzal ez], w het her or not t here w as dom est ic vi ol enc e i nvol ved? A
. Y es, I di d. Q. A nd w hat w as her response? A
. S he sai d y es.

111Q. Was she a c c om p ani ed by any one t hat m orni ng ? A
. I d oc um e n t ed that she w as ac c om pani ed by a parent . Q. A nd based upon her - - her st at em ent s t o y ou a bout w h at broug ht her t o t he em e rg e nc y room , w hat t y pe o f
- - w hat t y pe of ac t i on di d you t ake w i t h reg ard t o her c ase? A
. Wel l, I t r i ag ed her, and I c at e g o r i zed her as a t raum a, bec ause she w as an i n j ury i nst e a d of a si c k n ess. A nd she report e d she l ost consc i ousness, so t hat w as a pri ori t y t w o. Q. When a pat i ent r e p ort s t hey l ost c onsc i ousness, does t h at m ake i t m ore seri ous t o y ou as a t ri ag e nurse? A
. It m eans t hey n eed t o s e e the doc t or m ore qui c k l y . So, y es, I guess i t does. Q. Was she sent t o a bed? A
. S h e was put in a bed i n the em erg enc y room that had the c apabi l i t y for m oni t ori ng her. Q. Y ou al so j udg e t he c ases by the l evel of ac ui t y ?

112A
. U h - huh. Q. A nd w hat i s t hat f o r t he j ury , pl ease? A
. Oh, that w a s c at eg ory t w o, the l evel of ac ui t y . Q. I’m h avi ng a li tt l e t roubl e heari ng y ou. A
. Oh, t hat w as a cat eg ory t wo, t he l evel of ac ui t y , bec ause she lost c onsc i ousness. S o she needs to see the doc t or sooner t h a n l at e r. Q. Where di d she t el l y ou she w as hurt i ng ? A
. Head and nec k. Q. A nd do y ou, as a t r i a g e nurse, ask t he pat i ent t o c at eg ori z e t hei r pai n i n any fashi on? A
. Y es. O n e bei ng m i ni m a l pai n, t en bei n g m ost possi bl e pai n , h o w m uc h pai n are i n now ? Q. A nd how di d she c at eg ori z e her pai n? A
. I put t en, so she t ol d m e t en. Q. Y ou t ol d us earl i er how y ou

113asked about the m ec hani sm of i n j ury . D i d she tel l y ou w hat t he m e c ha ni sm of i nj ury w as? A
. I put dow n, “I w as choked unt i l l passed out .” Q. S o she t ol d y ou she w as c hoked?

* * * A
. Y es. Q. S o w as she r eferred t o a doc t or; i s t hat c orrec t ? A
. I don’t underst and w hat y ou’re aski n g m e. Q. Was she referred t o a doc t or? A
. D o you m ean w as she seen by a doc t or i n t he bac k? Q. Y es. A
. Y es. Q. D o y ou know w hat furt her di ag nosi s t hey di d of her? A
. I c an - - Q. D i d t h e y s e n d h e r f or addi ti onal

114t est ing ? A
. I t hi nk she g ot a head C T
. A
. A nd w hat i s t hat ? A
. It ’s a X-r a y that uses a c om put e r. S o i t c an see y our bones, but i t c an al so see y our brai n. S o, li ke, i f y ou had a brai n bl eed, t hat w oul d show up on a head C T
. ( R R
. X X X V
- 1 7
- 2 0 )
. B. Federal and S t at e C onst i t ut i onal Law A ppel l ant a dopt s t he arg um ent s m ade i n poi nt s of e rror fi ft een and si x t ee n , a b ove. T h ere shoul d be no quest ion t hat Rosi e’s al l eg ed st at em e nt s
m ade t o t he S ex ual A ssaul t Nurse E x a m i ner are t est im oni al
. S i nc e M s. C row e had no rec ol l ec t i on of her pat i ent , al l any one has i s t he not es t hat she took w hi l e perform i ng her dut i es as a S A NE
. T he i nt ervi ew w as a cust odi al ex am i nat i on in preparat i on for possi bl e t est i m ony ag ai nst A ppel l ant i n c ourt . A t t he ti m e of t he present offense, a fel ony fam i l y vi ol enc e a ssaul t c ase pert a i ni ng t o t hi s i nc i dent

w as pendi ng ag ai nst A ppel l ant . (R R
. X L
- 3 4
- 3 6 , 5 0
- 5 1

). Rosi e Gonzal ez w as n ot personal l y p r e sent a s a w i t ness at A ppel l a nt ’ s t ri al , n or w a s she e xam i ned in A ppel l ant ’s presenc e a n d subj ec t t o cross-ex am i nat i on by hi m . Thus, i t w as error 115t o al l ow Ms. Crow e t o t est i fy t o w hat Rosi e had t ol d her. A ppel l ant ’s ri g ht s under

t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U
. S
. C o n s t
. a n d a r t
. 1 , § 1 0 o f t h e T e x . C o n s t
. w ere
c l earl y vi ol at ed. A ppel l ant al so assert s t hat t he adm issi on o f t h i s prej udi c i a l t e st i m ony c ont ri but ed t o t he j ury ’s deat h verdi c t . A ppe ll ant request s t hi s C ourt t o sust ai n poi nt s of error ei g ht een and ni net een, reverse t he Judg m ent of D eat h, and rem and hi s case t o t he t ri al c ourt

w i t h i n st ruc t i ons t hat he be afforded a new puni shm ent heari ng .

116P O I N T O F E R R O R T W E N T Y IF NON E OF A PPE LLA NT ’S POINT S O F E RROR ARE RE V E RS IBLE PE R S E , THE N A L L O F T H E E R R O R S P R E S E N T C U M U L A T I V E E R R O R R E Q U I R I N G R E V E R S A L W H E N C O N S I DE R E D TO G E TH E R
. ( R e c o r d i n i t

s e n t i r e t y )
. A ppel l a n t c o nt ends t hat i f t hi s C ourt fi nds t hat t he t ri al c ourt e rred a s arg ued i n poi nt s of error one t hroug h ni net een and t hat eac h error was harm l ess, t h e n t he errors w arrant reversal of t he tri al c ourt ’s j udg m ent w hen c onsi dered

c um ul at ivel y. T hi s C ourt , t he T ex as S uprem e C ourt , and t he U ni t ed S t at es C i rc ui t C ourt of A ppeal s for t he Fi ft h C i rc ui t have al l rec og ni zed that an ag g reg at i on of nonreversi bl e errors, w hi c h a r e pl ai n errors fai l ing t o nec e ssi t at e reversal and harm l ess errors, c an yi el d a resul t t hat am ount s t o t h e deni al of t he

c onst i t ut i onal ri g ht t o a fai r tri al , whi c h cal l s for reversal
. S e e , e . g
. , U n i t e d S t a t e s

v M u n o z , 1 5 0 F
. 3 d 4 0 1 , 4 1 8 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) c e r t
. d e n i e d , 2 5 U
. S
. 1 1 1 2 ( 1 9 9 9 ); K i n g v F e d e r a l U n d e r w r i t e r

s E x c h a n g e , 1 4 4 T

e x. 5 3 1 , 1 9 1 S
. W

. 2 d 8 5 5 ( 1 9 4 6

) (c i t i ng S m e r ke v O f

f i c e E q u i p m e n t C o . , 1 3 8 T e x . 2 3 6 , 1 5 8 S
. W

. 2 d 3 0 2 ( 1 9 4 1

); R e n n v S t a t e , 4 9 5 S
. W

. 2 d 9 2 2 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 3 )
. In C h a m b e r l a i n v S t a t e , 9 9 8 S
. W
. 2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 8 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 )

117c e r t
. d e n i e d , 5 2 8 U
. S
. 1 0 8 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) (c it i ng S t a h l v S t a t e , 7 4 9 S
. W
. 2 d 8 2 6 , 8 3 2 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8

) ) t hi s Court a cknow l edg e d t hat i t “i s conc e i vabl e t hat a
num ber of errors m ay be found harm ful i n t hei r c um ul at i ve effec t . . .” Ni ne y ears l at er, i n G a m b o a v S t a t e , 2 9 6 S
. W
. 3 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 5 ( T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 9

) (c i ti ng S t a h l a t 8 3 2 ) t hi s Court rec og ni zed that “i t i s possi bl e for a num ber of errors t o
c um ul at ivel y ri se t o t he poi nt w here t h ey bec om e harm ful .” E ven before C h a m b e r l a i n w as dec ided, at least one Court of A ppeal s had hel d t hat , al t houg h “som e errors are not c onsi dered reversi bl e, al l errors
c onsi dered t og e t h e r c an present c um ul at i ve error requi ri n g r e v e r s a l
. ” Bot t v Bot t , 9 6 2 S
. W
. 2 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 1 ( T

e x . A p p . - - H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i

s t
. ] 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t
. ) (c i ti ng P i t m a n v L i

g h t f o o t , 9 3 7 S
. W

. 2 d 4 9 6 , 5 3 7 ( T

e x . A p p . - - S a n An t o n i o 1 9 9 6 , w r i t d e n i e d ) ; K l e i n v S p o r t i n g G oo d s , I n c . , 7 7 2 S
. W

. 2 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 9 ( T

e x . A p p . - - H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i

s t
. ] 1 9 8 9 , w r i t d e n i e d

)
. Ot her T ex as c ourt s, i nc l udi ng t hi s one, have reversed t ri al c ourt j udg m ent s for c um ul at i ve error, w i t hout l a bel i ng i t a s
suc h, i n c ases of i neffec ti ve a ssi st a n ce of c ounsel
. E x p a r t e W

e l b o r n , 7 8 5 S
. W

. 2 d 3 9 1 , 3 9 6 (T

e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0

) (“A l t houg h, n o one i nst anc e i n t he present

c ase st and i ng al one i s suffi c i ent proof of i n effec t i ve assi st anc e of c ounsel ,
c ounsel ’s perform a n c e t aken as a w h ol e does c om pel suc h a hol di ng .”); B r o w n 118v S t a t e , 9 7 4 S
. W
. 2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 4 ( T

e x . Ap p . - - S a n A n t o n i o 1 9 9 8 , p e t
. r e f ’ d ) (“Not every al l eg at i on of i neffec t iveness of c ounsel i n t hi s c ase w oul d j ust i fy reversal
. How ever, t he t ot al i ty of defense c oun s e l ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n u n d e r mi n e s t h i s co u r t ’ s
c onfi denc e i n t he c onvi c t i on.”); G r e e n v S t a t e , 8 9 9 S
. W
. 2 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 9 ( T

e x . A p p . -

- S a n A n t o n i o 1 9 9 5 , n o p e t
. ) (hol di ng that , whi l e “not every short c om i ng of defense c ounsel i n t hi s case w oul d j ust i fy reversal
. . . cum ul a t i vel y , t he errors t ot al l y underm i ne c onfi denc e i n t h i s c o n v i c t i on.”); S m i t h v S t a t e , 8 9 4 S
. W
. 2 d 8 7 6 , 8 8 0 ( T

e x . A p p . - - A m a r i l l o 1 9 9 5 , p e t
. r e f ’ d ) (“t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of t hese

c i rc um st anc e s veri fy t hat t ri al c ounsel ’ s represent at i on fel l be l ow an obj ec t i ve st andard of reasonabl eness”). In t hi s c ase, t h roug h c um ul at i ve error, t he t ri al c ourt vi ol at ed Appel l ant ’s F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t ri g ht t o due proc ess and a f a i r t ri al
. T he i ndi vi dual

er rors above i nvol ved m at t ers of c onst it ut i onal l a w and st at e l aw that so infec t ed t h e ent i re t ri al that A ppel lant ’ s c o n vi c t i on vi ol at e s due proc ess and a fai r j ury t ri al in vi ol at i on of t h e S i

x t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

s t o t h e U
. S
. C o n s t
. S e e , D e r d e n v M c N e e l

, 9 7 8 F
. 2 d 1 4 5 3 , 1 4 5 7 (5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c ) c e r t
. d e n i e d , 5 0 8 U
. S
. 9 6 0 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; S t a h l v S t a t e a t 8 3 1 (hol di ng h arm l i es i n t he c um ul at i ve effec t of a w i t ness’ out burst and prosec ut or’s i m proper arg um ent s). A s a resul t , 119t h is C ourt shoul d reverse t he J udg m ent a nd rem and A ppel l ant ’s c ase bac k t o t he

t ri al court w i t h i n st ruc t ions t hat he afforded a n ew tri al
. S e e , T e x . R u l e A p p . P r o c . 4 3
. 2 ( d ) ; T e x . C r i m . P r oc . C o d e A n n . a r t
. 4 4
. 2 9 ( a ) (V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 1 2 )
.

120C O N C L U S I O N A N D P R A Y E R

A ppel l ant respec t ful l y p r a y s t h at t hi s Honorabl e C ourt sust ai n hi s fi rst t h roug h fourt eent h and hi s t w ent i et h poi nt s of error, reverse t he t ri al c ourt ’s Judg m e nt and sent enc e of Deat h , and rem and hi s c a se bac k t o t he t ri al c ourt

w i t h inst ruc t i ons that he rec ei ve a new t ri al
. In t he a l t ernat i ve, A ppel l a nt respec tful l y pray s that t hi s Honorabl e C ourt sust ai n fi ft eent h t hroug h ni n et eent h poi n ts of error, reverse t he J udg m en t a nd S ent enc e of D e at h ag ai nst hi m , and

rem and hi s c a se t o t h e t r i a l c ourt w i th i nst ruc ti ons t hat he be afforded a new sent enc i ng heari ng . Respec t ful l y subm i t t ed,

/s/ M ary B. T hornt on M A RY B. T HORNT ON A t t orney for A ppel l ant 3 9 01 Rac e S t reet Fort Wort h, T ex as 7 6 11 1 T el ephone No.: (8 1 7 ) 7 5 9 -0 40 0 T el ec opi er No.: (8 1 7 ) 8 3 1
- 3 0 0 2 m ary brabson0 1 @ g m ai l
. c om S tat e Bar No. 1 9 71 3 70 0

121S T A T E M E N T O F C O M P L I A N C E W I T H R U L E 9
. 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( B )

I c e rt i fy t hat t hi s br i e f c o n t ai ns 2 7 , 1 1 2 w ords, c om pl y i ng w i th R u l e 9
. 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r oc e d u r e .

/ s / M a r y B
. T ho r n t on M ary B. T hornt on

C E R T I FI C A T E O F S E R V IC E A copy of Appel l ant ’s bri ef has been e l e c t r o n i c al l y served on t he Hon. D ebra Wi ndsor, C hi ef of Post Convi c t i on i n t he Tarrant C ount y Di st ri c t A tt orney ’s Offi c e, Fourt h F l oor of t he Ti m C urry C ri m i n al Just ic e C ent e r, 40 1 West Bel knap, Fort Wort h, Tex as 76 19 6 , at C OA A ppel l at eA l ert s@ t arrant c ount y .c om on t he 3 rd day of A ug ust , 2 0 1 5
.

/s/M ary B. T hornt on M A RY B. T HORNT ON

122