## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 74, 391 PE R R Y EU G EN E W I LL I A M S , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON DI RE CT AP P EA L FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY M e y e r s , J ., f

ile d a di s s e nting o

pinion. I d o n o t a g re e w ith th e m a jo ri ty’s a n a lysis o f

A p p e lla n t’ s f

ir s t p o in t o f

e rr o r. S l o wl yb u ts u r e l yt h e mi t i g a t i o n i s s u e h a s b e e n tu r n e d o n i t s h e a d a n d h a s b e c o me n o th in g m o re th a n a to o l to in su re th e im p lem e n tatio n o f d e a th . T h e iss u e w a s m e a n t to pr ovi de s oci etyw i t h a mechani s m fordecl i ni ng t o s ent ence a def endantt o death. T he el ect ed di s t r i ctat t or neyhas t he pr er ogat i ve t o s eek the dea t h penal t yi n anycas e w hi ch me e t s t h e b a s i c r e q u i r e me n t s o f P e n a l Co d e S e c . 1 9 . 0 3 . Bu tth e mi t i g a t i o n i s s u e a l l o ws t he j ur yt o s ayt hati tdoes notw antt o gi ve the dea t h penal t yi n t he ci r cumst ance s of thatWil liams dissent–P ag e 2

cas e. A s a r es ul t , i ti s as m uch s oci ety ’ s r i ghtas i ti s the def endant ’ s , and no def

endant s h o u ld b e a b le to w a iv e it. I agr ee w i t h t he A ppel l antt hatthe i s s ue has become s o m uddi ed thatthe hea r i ng o n m iti g a tio n is o f

ten m o re d e trim e n tal th a n b e n e f icia l. B yth e tim e th e ju ryis to co n side r th e m it igation issue , theyh av e a lr ea d yag ree d that the d ef en d an t i s a f

u ture d a n g e r a n d h a v e d e c id e d to s e n te n c e h im o r h e r t o d e a th . See T exas C ode of Cri m i nal P ro c e d u re A rt. 3 7 .0 7 1 S e c . 2 (b ). M iti g a tio n is th e d e f e n d a n t’s o p p o rtu n ityto tryto chan ge thei r m i nd s. B ypresent i ng evidence o f i ssues that m aym ake the defe nd ant l ess cul pabl e forhi s hor r i bl e ac t i ons , s uch as chi l dhood i s s ues , m ent al pr obl ems, abus e, drug addi ct i on, et c. , t he j ur yhas a cha nce t o cons i derthatther e mayhave be en s om e s i tuat i ons t hatw er e outof the def endant ’ s contr ol thatcontr i but ed t o hi s act i ons . T her efor e, r ather t han al l ow a def

endantt o w ai ve the i s s ue, w e s houl d gi ve gr eat ers t ructur e and gui dance o n th e is s u e s o th a t it is u s e a b le a n d n o t s o m e th in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t w o u ld w a n t to w a iv e . S e e m yd iss e n tin g o p in io n in Mo sle y v . S ta te , 983 S. W . 2d 249, 270 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 8 ). T he Texas l egi s l atur e pr om ul gat ed the mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue bec aus e the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ts t at ed thatt he j urym us tbe abl e t o cons i derand gi ve ef fec tt o any m i t i gat i ng evi dence r el evantt o a def endant ' s backgr ound and cha r act erorthe c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e c ri m e . P enr

y v. Lynaugh , 492 U . S. 303, 328 ( 1989) ; T exas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 37. 071Sec. 2 ( e) ( 1) . T he poi ntw as t o gi ve t o the j ur y a met hod forWil liams dissent–P ag e 3

v o t i n g a g a i n s tt h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i f t h e r e a r e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . T h e j u r y, re p re s e n tin g s o c ie ty, h a s b e e n g iv e n th e o p tio n to n o t g iv e a d e f e n d a n t th e d e a th p e n a lty. I di s agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t yt hatt he choi ce gi ven t o t he j urycan be w ai ved bythe d e f e n d a n t. I do, how ever , under s t and w hya def endantw oul d w antt o w ai ve the mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue now t hatw e al l ow t he St at e t o pr es entt ot al l yi r r el evantvi ct i m - r el at ed evi dence . A l l ow i ng s uch evi dence turns the mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue i nt o a val ue- of- l i fe w ei ghi ng t es tw her e the val ue of the vi ct i m ’ s l i fe thatw as t aken i s on one s i de and w hethert he def

endant ’ s l i fe i s val uabl e enough t o be s par ed i s on t he other . T hi s type of val ue- of- l i fe ba l anci ng t es tw as s peci fi cal l yr ej ect ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n P ayne v . Tennes s ee , 5 0 1 U .S . 8 0 8 , 8 2 3 , sta tin g th a t “v ictim im p a c t ev id e n c e is n o t o f f e re d to encour age c om par at i ve j udgm ent s of thi s ki nd – fori ns t ance , thatthe ki l l erof a har dw or ki ng, devot ed par entdes erves the dea t h penal t y , butthatthe murde r erof a re p ro b a te d o e s n o t.” H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt u lti m a telyh e ld th a t th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t d id n o t b a r t h e p re s e n ta tio n o f v ic tim im p a c t e v id e n c e . P ayne s ay s , “W e thus hol d t hati f the St at e choos es t o perm i tt he admi s s i on of vi ct i m i m pactevi dence and pr os ecut or i al ar gum enton t hats ubj ect , t he Ei ght h A m endmenter ect s no per se bar . A St at e may l egi t i m at el yconcl ude thatevi dence aboutthe vi ct i m and aboutthe i m pactof the murde r o n th e v ictim ’s f

a m ilyis re lev a n t to th e ju ry ’s d e c isio n a s to w h e th e r o r n o t th e d e a th penal t ys houl d be i m pos ed. T her e i s no r eas on t o t r eats uch evi dence di ffe r ent l ythanWil liams dissent–P ag e 4

ot herr el evantevi dence i s t r eat ed. ” Id . at 8 2 7 . W h ile o u r le g isla tu re sp e c if ica llysta ted in T ex as C o d e o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re A rt icl e 3 7 . 0 7 1 , sec ti o n 2 (e)(1), th at th e d ef en d an t’ s char act erand bac kgr ound s houl d be cons i der ed bythe j ury , now her e does i ts aythatt he vi ct i m ’ s char act erand bac kgr ound s houl d be. B eca us e ourl egi s l atur e has notconcl uded th a t ev id e n c e a b o u t th e v ictim a n d th e im p a c t o f th e m u rd e r o n th e v ictim ’s f a m ilysh o u ld be admi t t ed fort he j ur yt o cons i derw hen dec i di ng w hetherthe dea t h penal t ys houl d be im p o se d , w e sh o u ld n o t tak e it u p o n o u rse lv e s to re a d th a t in to th e sta tu te. I d e c lin e to le g is la te f

ro m th e b e n c h . T h e re f o re , I re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t. M ey ers , J.

Fi l ed: J une 11, 2008 P ub l i sh