1

T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 19.03(a)
. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS A P - 75, 358
JO E L U N A , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON DI RE CT AP P EA L F ROM CAUS E N O. 2 0 0 6 - CR- 0 0 3 3 I N T HE 3 7 9 DI S TR I CT COURT TH BEX AR CO UNTY
P RICE, J ., d e liv e r e d th e o p in io n fo r a u n a n im o u s C o u r t. H ERVEY , J. , fi l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h W OMACKand J OHNS ON , JJ . , j oi ne d. O PI NI O N T he a p p e l l a n twas c o n v i c t e d i n M a r c h 2 0 0 6 , o f c a p i t a l mur d e r . Th e a ppel l ant 1 pl eade d gui l t y i n fr ont of t he j ur y , and bas ed on t he j ur y ’ s ans w er s t o t he s peci al i s s ues s et for t h i n T exas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 37. 071, s ect i ons 2( b) and 2( e) , t he tr i alLUNA

-- 2

2 Art. 37.071, § 2(g ). Unless otherw ise indicated all refe renc es to Articles refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3 Art. 37.071, § 2(h)
. j udge s ent ence d t he appe l l antt o death. D i r ectappea l t o t hi s C o u rt is aut om at i c. A ft er 2 3
re v iew in g th e a p p e ll a n t’ s tw e n ty -f iv e p o in ts o f

e rro r, w e f

in d th e m to b e w ith o u t m e rit. C ons equent l y , w e af

fi r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm entand s ent ence of dea t h. In th e a p p e llan t’s f

irst p o in t o f

e rro r, h e c o n te n d s th a t th e trial c o u rt “ e rre d in conduct i ng an unauthor i zed ad hoc pr ocee di ng w hi ch fai l ed t o pr ovi de a s epar at e s ent enci ng p roc ess a s req u ir ed b ystatu te. ” In h is seco n d p o in t o f e rror, h e a sserts t h at t h e tri al co u rt “err ed i n conduct i ng an unauthor i zed pr ocedur e w hi ch fa i l ed t o pr ovi de a pr oper l ybi fur cat ed t r i al i n vi ol at i on of the Ei ght h and Four t eenth [A ] m endment s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C o n s titu tio n .” A tt he com m ence m ent of t he t r i al on t he m er i t s , t he t r i al cour t r ead t he i ndi ct m entand the ap p ell an t p lead ed g u il tyin the p rese n ce o f th e jury
. T h e tri al co u rtthen ex cu sed the ju ry and admoni s hed t he appe l l antof t he cons equenc es of hi s pl ea. T h e p ar t i es al s o di s cus s ed ho w t o p roceed, con cl ud i ng as fol l ow s:

T H E C O U R T : [W ] hatI pl an to d o is b r i ng t he j ur yback i n, i ns t ruct them that y o u h av e e n tered a p lea o f g u iltyto the o ff en se o f c ap it al m u rde r. I w i ll t hen m ov e i nto t he p un i shm ent phase of the t ri al
. I guess i t ’s a co m b ination o f p u n ishm en t sl ash g u il t- inn o ce n ce . T h ere w ill n o t b e a jury char ge unt i l w e conc l ude thi s phas e. U pon t he conc l us i on of al l t he evi dence , I w i l l gi ve th em a cha r ge thati ns t ruct s t hem t o fi nd y ou gui l t y . A nd t hat ch arg e w il l also inclu d e th e sp ec ial issue s tha t th eyw il l be re q u ir ed to an sw er. So t hi s phas e of the tr i al w i l l i ncl ude evi dence fr om bot h t he i ndi ct ed ca s e andLUNA

-- 3

anyextr aneo us m at t ers . A ny t hi ng el s e? [PR O SE C U T O R ] : Y o u r H onor , m ayt he r ecor d r efl ectt hatw e have c o n f e rre d w ith c o u n se l o u ts id e - - w e ll, w ith th e C o u rt a s to th e p ro c e d u re in r efe r e n c e t o t h e s u b mi s s i o n o f t h e c h a r g e , o f t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e v e r d i c t of g u ilty , as w e ll as th e q u e stio n s to b e a sk e d , to b e d o n e in a u n if ied f a sh io n in one ver di ctform , and one c har gi ng i ns t rum ent , and thati s agr eea bl e t o t he part i es? T H E C O U R T : O k a y. [D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : I ti s agr eea bl e, J udge. T H E C O U R T : A l l r i ght
. A ny t hi ng el s e bef or e w e gets t ar t ed? I pr opos e w e br i ng t he j ur yi n and I’ l l i ns t ruct t hem t hat he has ent er ed a pl ea of gui l t yand w e’ l l m ove r i ghti nt o t he evi dence
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt th e n re c a lled th e ju rya n d re itera ted th a t th e a p p e llan t h a d p lea d e d g u iltyto th e in d ictm e n t. T h e trial c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t th e p a rties w o u ld p re se n t ev id e n c e o n b o th gui l t and puni s hm ent and t hen t he j ur y w oul d r ece i ve a “c har ge thati ns t ruct s y ou w hatt o do as itrelates to b o th p h ase s o f the tr ial
. ” A fter the p arti es p rese n ted e v iden ce , the tri al co u rt fi r s tr ead the j ur ychar ge on gui l t/ i nnocenc e. T he j ur or s del i ber at ed on gui l t/ i nnocenc e and
re tu rn e d a v e rd ict f

in d in g th e a p p e llan t g u ilty o f c a p ital m u rd e r a s c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. T he tr i al cour tt hen r ead the puni s hm entchar ge and t he par t i es m ade cl os i ng ar gum ent s . T he j ur or s del i ber at ed on puni s hm ent and t he t r i al cour t s ent ence d t he appel l ant t o death bas ed
o n t h e i ra n s we r s t o t h e s p e c i a l i s s u e s o n t h e v e r d i c tf o r m. T he appe l l antar gues t hatA r t i cl e 37. 071 m andat es a bi fur cat ed pr ocee di ng i n a ca pi t al
cas e. H e r el i es on t he ver s i on of t he s t atut e i n eff ect at t he t i m e he c om m i t t ed the off ens e,LUNA

-- 4

4 T EX C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.071, § 2(a)(1) (Ve rnon 2001). 5 761 S.W .2d 307, 312-14 (Te x . Crim. App. 1988). w h ich sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: If a d e f e n d a n t is tried f

o r a c a p ital o f

f e n se in w h ich th e sta te s e e k s th e d e a th p en alt y , o n a f

ind ing that the d ef

en d an t is g u il ty o f a ca p it al of fe n se, t h e c o u rt s hal l conducta s epar at e s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng t o det er m i ne w hethert he d ef en d an t sha ll b e se n tenc ed to d ea th o r l ife im p ri so n m en t. [ ] 4 T h e a p p e llan t c o m p lain s tha t th e ju ry in th e in sta n t ca se “ re c e iv e d n o c lea r in stru c tio n a s to t he nec es s i t yof m ent al l ys epar at i ng t he tw o cons i der at i ons of g u il t and sent enci ng, ” that th e se iss u e s w e re p re se n ted to th e ju ry“ in c lo s e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity ,” a n d th a t, as a re su lt, “th e jurym ayal l t oo eas i l yhave mi s under s t ood i t s r ol e” a nd “as s um ed thata nega t i ve out come for[t he appe l l ant ] w as di ct at ed tw i ce ove r . ” H e ac know l edges t hata bi fur cat ed p ro c e e d in g is no t “ c o n stitu tio n a lly m a n d a ted ,” b u t a rg u e s tha t it sh o u ld b e . H e a lso a ss e rts t hat, becau se bi furcat ed p roceedings ar e m and at ed b yA rt i cl e 37
. 07 1, t here i s a

“ c o n s titu tio n a lly c o g n iz a b le d u e p ro c e s s in te re s t in s u c h a p ro c e e d in g .” W e d e c lin e to h o ld th a t b if u rc a ted p r o c e e d in g s a re sta tu to rilyo r c o n stitu tio n a lly
m andat ed. I n Hol l a n d v. St at e, w e rej ect ed the argum ent that A rt i cl e 37
. 07 1 m and at es a bi fur cat ed pr ocee di ng i n capi t al cas es . A s w e s t at ed i n W ill ia m s v . S ta te : 5 [T]he pl ea of gui l t y befor e a j ur y es s ent i al l y becomes a t r i al on p u n ishm ent sin c e e n tryo f

a p lea o f

g u iltyb e f

o re a ju rye sta b lish e s a d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt exce ptw her e evi dence demonst r at es hi s i nnocenc e. ( C i t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he in tro d u c tio n o f

e v id e n c e is n o t to d e ter m in e g u iltb u t is to e n a b le th e ju r ytoLUNA

-- 5

6 674 S.W .2d 315, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 7 253 S.W .3d 220, 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 8 Ar tic le26 .1 3(b) provid es that no guil ty ple a sh a ll b e a c c epte d b y

thetria l c ourt

un le ss i t a p p e ar s th atth e d e f

e n d anti s m e nt a l l y c o mp e t e ntan d th e p l e a i s f r e e an d v o l unt ar y. 9 Art. 46B .003. 10 (continued...) in te llig e n tly e x e rc is e d is c re tio n in d e te rm in in g th e a p p ro p ri a te p u n is h m e n t.[ ] 6 Fur t her , as w e r ece nt l yhel d i n Ful l erv. St at e, once a defe ndant pl eads gui l t y t o a j ur y , “[t ] he
ca se sim p lyp roc ee d s w ith a u n it aryp u n ishm en t hea ri n g . ” P o ints o f error on e a n d tw o are 7
overrul ed. In p o in ts of e rro r th re e a n d f o u r, th e a p p e llan t c laim s th a t th e trial c o u rt d e n ied h im due pr oces s and vi ol at ed A r t i cl e 46B
. 004 w hen i t fai l ed t o conduct an “ade quat e” i nqui r yon t he i s s ue of hi s compet ency . I n poi nt s of err orfi ve and s i x, t he appel l antar gues t hatt he t r i al
cour tdeni ed hi m due pr oces s and vi ol at ed A r t i cl e 26. 13 w h en itacc ept ed hi s gui l t ypl ea
w i t h o u ta n “ a d e q u a t e ” c o m p e t e n c y i n q u i r y. 8 A p e rso n is in c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial if h e lac k s (1 ) a su f f icie n t p re se n t ab ili tyto
cons ul tw i t h hi s l aw y erw i t h a r eas onabl e degr ee of r at i onal under s t andi ng; or( 2) a r at i onal
as w el l as f

act ual un derst and i ng of t he proceed i ng s ag ai nst him
. E i t her partym aysugg est 9 bym ot i on, ort he tr i al cour tm aysu g g est o n it s ow n m ot i on, t hatt he def endantm aybe i ncompet entt o s t and tr i al
. I f evi dence s ugges t i ng t hat t he defenda nt m ay be i ncompet ent 10LUNA

-- 6

(...continued) 10 Art. 46B .004(a)
. 11 Art. 46B .004(b). 12 Art. 46B .004(c)
. t o s t and tr i al comes t o t he att ent i on of t he t r i al cour t , t hen the tr i al cour ton i t s ow n m ot i on
s hal l s ugges tt hatt he def endantm aybe i ncompet ent t o s t and t r i al
. O n s ugges t i on t hatt he 11 defe ndantm aybe i ncompet entt o s t and tr i al , t he tr i al cour ts hal l det er m i ne by“i nfor m al i nqui r y ” w hethert her e i s s om e evi dence fr om any s our ce t hat w oul d s uppor t a fi ndi ng t hat th e d e f e n d a n t m a yb e in c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial. 12 T he t r i al court inq ui r ed aboutt he appe l l ant ’ s compet encys ever al t i m es dur i ng t he pr ocee di ngs . W hen t he appe l l anti ni t i al l ypl eade d gui l t yt o t he cha r ges i n t he i ndi ct m ent , t he t r i al cour tadmoni s hed hi m of t he cons equenc es of hi s pl ea. T he appe l l ants t at ed thathe under s t ood t he admoni s hm ent s , t hathi s pl ea w as nott he r esult o f t hr eat s orpr om i s es , and t hat he w as sat i sfi ed w i t h the ass i st ance o f def ense c o u n se l. T he tr i al cou rtasked d efen se
couns el i f t he appel l ant had “a ra t i onal and fa ctual under s t andi ng of t he pr ocee di ngs , ” i f he
w a s “ a b le to a ss ist in th e p re p a ra tio n o f a n yp o ss ib le d e f

e n se s,” a n d if

h e w a s “ m e n tally
com petent ” t o w ai ve h i s r i gh t s and en t er a gui l t yplea. D efen se coun sel repl i ed to al l of these ques t i ons i n t he af

fi r m at i ve. T he appe l l antl at ert es t i fi ed att r i al , agai ns tt he advi ce of defe ns e couns el
. O ut s i de t he pr es ence of t he j ury , defe ns e couns el ques t i oned the appe l l antabouthi s deci s i on t o t es t i fyLUNA

-- 7

13 The alternate juror was never actually seate d on the j ury . The juror she wa s g oing to replac e was fe elingill, but was able to continue his jury service
. and hi s aw ar enes s of t he cons equenc es of doi ng s o. T he appe l l antr epea t edl yi ndi cat ed an
un derst and i ng of the con sequen ces of h i s deci si on t o tes t i fy
. T he tri al cou rt asked d efen se
couns el i f he be l i eved t hatt he appe l l anthad “a r at i onal and fa ctual under s t andi ng of t he p ro c e e d in g s” a n d w a s “ m e n tallyc o m p e ten t” to w a iv e h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts a n d to t est i fyi n fron tof the j ury . D efen se cou nsel repl i ed i n the affi rm at i ve. T he tr i al cou rtal so q u e stio n e d th e a p p e ll a n t, w h o sa id th a t h e u n d e rsto o d h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h t n o t to t es t i fyand t he cons equenc es of w ai vi ng t hatr i ght
. H e als o acknow l edged thatno one th re a te n e d h im o r c o e rc e d h im to te s tif y . T he t r i al cour taga in inq u ir ed aboutthe appe l l ant ’ s compet encypr i ort o cl os i ng argum ents , w h en the app el l ant consented t o the seat i ng of an al t ernat e j uror. D efen se 13
c o u n se l sta ted th a t h e w a s n o t in f a v o r of se a tin g th e a ltern a te ju ro r b e c a u se sh e w a s, in h is opi ni on, “extr emel ypr o- death s ent en ce . ” T he tr i al cour tt hen ques t i oned def ens e couns el and t he ap pell ant as foll ow s:

T H E C O U R T : [D efe ns e couns el ] , ar e y ou confi dentt haty our cl i ent- - I ’ ve as ked t hi s befor e, butas t o t hi s i s s ue - - has a r at i onal and fac tual under s t andi ng of t he i s s ues w e’ r e dea l i ng w i t h t hi s m or ni ng? [ D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: H e d o e s. T h e re ’s n o d o u b t a b o u t th a t. I t hi nk D oct orSkop has t es t i fi ed, al s o, as t o hi s m ent al condi t i on. T H E C O U R T : A nd i n y our opi ni on i s he m ent al l y compet entat t hi s t i m e t o be abl e t o m ake thatt ype of a deci s i on?LUNA

-- 8 [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: Y es, he is
. * * * T H E C O U R T : R igh t. [A p p ell an t] , d o y o u u n d erstan d ev ery thi ng w e’ ve done up he r e? [A PPE L L A N T ] : I under s t and. T H E C O U R T : D o y ou have a nyques t i on s a b o utanyt hi ng w e’v e g o n e o v er? [A PPE L L A N T ] : N o. T H E C O U R T : W ere y ou able t o eff e c tiv e lyc o m m u n ica te w i t h y ourat t or neyt hi s m or ni ng r egar di ng notonl yt he i s s ue of t he l aw y er- - ort he j ur or ’ s bei ng i l l t hi s m or ni ng, butt he i s s ues r e l a t e d t o t h e a l t e r n a t e a n d h e rf e e l i n g s o n t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y? [A PPE L L A N T ] : I di d. T H E C O U R T : D o y ou hav e anyqu est i on s? [A PPE L L A N T ] : N o. T he appe l l antcompl ai ns t hatt he tr i al court ’ s i nfor m al i nqui r yi nt o hi s compet ency
w a s “ i n a d e q u a t e . ” He a s s e r t s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u r t“ f a i l e d e n t i r e l yt o ma k e a n yme a n i ngful inq u iryb ey o n d this cu rsory q u esti o n ing w h ich eli cit ed b ri ef an sw ers.” H e a rgu es th at m o re
w as r equ i red i n this case, given hi s sudd en and i rr at i on al decis i on s t o p l ead g uil t yand “t o ask fordeath. ” H e ar gues t hatt he tr i al cour t s houl d have or der ed a ps y chi atr i c exa m i nat i on and sh o u ld h av e so u g h t i n fo rm ati o n ab o u t his cu rren t m en tal -he alt h statu s fro m jai lers or o thersLUNA

-- 9

14 See, e .g., Lawrence v. State, 16 9 S. W.3 d 3 19 , 3 28 n. 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2 00 5, pe t. ref ’d) (d ec l i n i ngto mandate theseactions as pa rt of an inf

ormal inquiry , but holding that “the y do constitute useful, nonexclusive source s of information available to the trial cour t in making suc h an inquiry .”). w h o k n e w h im . H o w e v e r, t h is is n o t n e c e s s a ri ly re q u ir e d in a n “ in f o rm a l in q u ir y .” 14 I n t hi s cas e, defe ns e couns el expr es s ed hi s opi ni on s ever al t i m es t hatt he a p p e l l antw as compet entt o s t and t r i al
. T he appe l l antr epea t edl ys t at ed i n r es pons e t o ques t i oni ng byt he t r i al cour tt hathe under s t ood t he cons equenc es of h is d eci s i ons t o pl ead gui l t y , t o t es t i fy befor e the j ur y , and t o cons entt o t he s eat i ng of an a l t ernat e j ur or . I tal s o appea r s fr om t he appel l ant ’ s t es t i m onybefor e t he j ur yt hathe made t hes e choi ces aft ert houghtand d e lib e ra tio n . H e e x p lain e d th a t h e w a n ted to “ tu rn m ylife o v e r to G o d ,” “ to se t it stra ig h t” fort he vi ct i m ’ s fami l y , and t o “gi ve them j us t i ce f orw hatI di d. ” H e s ai d, “I don’ ts ee
m y s el f s pendi ng t he re s t of m y l i fe i n pr i s on, ” and t hati f he w er e s ent ence d t o death t hen he “w oul d be a bl e t o focus [hi s ] at t ent i on on get t i ng s t r engthened s pi r i tual l yand notbe sid e tra c k e d .” H e f

u rth e r te stif

ied th a t h e m a d e h is d e c isio n “ q u ite a w h ile b a c k ” a n d th a t it “i sn’t a spur of the m om ent thing t hat I ’m do i ng . ” T his w as al so con fi rm ed b ydefe nse
w i t n ess D r. B ri an Per r ySkop, a ps y chi atr i s tw ho eval uat ed the appe l l antand t es t i fi ed
r egar di ng futur e dange r ous nes s . W hen def ens e couns el as ked D r . Skop w hyhe thoughtt he appel l antw as r eques t i ng t he dea t h penal t y , he r epl i ed: W e ll, I m e t w it h h im b e f o re m ytes tim o n yto d a yto d isc u ss th a t. B e c a u se it w as a cha nge i n hi s defe ns e s t r at egys i nce I m et w i t h hi m back i n J anuary , at least w h at he ex p resse d to m e. A n d b asi c all y. . . itd o esn ’tap p ea r t h at he ’s su f f e rin g f ro m a m a jo r d e p re ss io n o r a n y th in g , o r h e ’s s u icid a l. It ’s b a sic a llyLUNA

- - 10

15 Ngo v. State, 17 5 S. W.3 d 7 38 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 05 ); R ing v . A r izo na, 5 3 6 U. S
. 584 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Schad v. A rizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991). a dec i s i on t hathe’ s m ade thathe w oul d r ather r ece i ve the dea t h penal t yt han be i n pr i s on fort he r es tof hi s l i fe, ort he maj or i t yof hi s l i fe. A ft err evi ew i ng t hi s evi dence , w e ca nnots aythatt he tr i al cour tabus ed i ts di s cr et i on by fa il ing to con d u ct fu rt h er i n q u iry into th e ap p ell an t’ s co m p eten cy . P o ints of erro r t h ree , fo u r, fi ve, and s i x ar e overrul ed. In p o in ts o f e rror sev en , eigh t, n ine, an d ten, t h e a p p ell an t com p lai n s tha t th e jury
c h a r g e a l l o we d h i m t o b e c o n v i c t e d o n l e s s th a n a n u n a n i mo u s j u r yv e r d i c t , wh i c h h e c l a i ms vi ol at ed hi s s t atut or yand cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and depr i ved hi m “of the r i ghtt o a j ur yfi ndi ng bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt on t he fac t us ed t o i ncr eas e hi s penal t y . ” T he appe l l antpl eade d 15 g u iltyto a n in d ictm e n t th a t co n tain e d th re e se p a ra te p a ra g ra p h s w ith in a sin g le c o u n t: CO UN T I P AR AGR AP H A
on or about t he 17 D ay of F ebruary , 2005, J O E L U N A , her ei naft err efe r r ed th t o a s d e f e n d a n t , d i d i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f a n i n d i v i d u a l , n a m e l y: M I CH AE L P AUL ANDR ADE , b yS T RA NGL I NG MI CH AE L P AUL ANDR ADE WI T H A DE ADL Y WEA P ON, NAMEL Y: A L I GAT UR E AND AN OB J E CT UNKNO WN TO T HE GR AND J UR OR S , T HAT I N T HE M ANN ER OF I T S US E AND I NT E NDE D US E WAS CA P AB L E OF C A U SI N G D E A T H A N D SE R I O U S B O D I L Y I N J U R Y , and the def endant w as i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng and att em pt i ng t o comm i tt he off ens e of BU RG LAR Y up o n M I CH AEL PAU L AN DR AD E; P AR AGR AP H B
on or about t he 17 D ay of F ebruary , 2005, J O E L U N A , her ei naft err efe r r ed th t o a s d e f e n d a n t , d i d i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f a n i n d i v i d u a l , n a m e l y:LUNA

- - 11

16 See Kitche ns v. State, 823 S.W .2d 256, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)(upholding ge n er al verdic t for one of

fensewith varying the ories of c ommissi on). M I CH AE L P AUL ANDR ADE , b yS T RA NGL I NG MI CH AE L P AUL ANDR ADE WI T H A DE ADL Y WEA P ON, NAMEL Y: A L I GAT UR E AND A N O B J E C T U N K N O WN T O T H E G R A N D J U R O R S , T H A T I N T HE M ANNE R O F I T S US E AN D I NTE NDE D US E WAS CA P AB L E OF C A U SI N G D E A T H A N D SE R I O U S B O D I L Y I N J U R Y , an d t he def endant w as i n t he cour se o f com m i t t i ng and att empt i ng t o comm i tt he off ens e of RO BBERY u p o n M I CH AEL PAU L AN DR AD E; P AR AGR AP H C
on or about t he 17 D ay of F ebruary , 2005, J O E L U N A , her ei naft err efe r r ed th t o a s d e f e n d a n t , d i d i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f a n i n d i v i d u a l , n a m e l y: M I CH AE L P AUL ANDR ADE , b yS T RA NGL I NG MI CH AE L P AUL ANDR ADE WI T H A DE ADL Y WEA P ON, NAMEL Y: A L I GAT UR E AND AN OB J E CT UNKNO WN TO T HE GR AND J UR ORS , T HAT I N T HE M ANNE R O F I T S US E AND I NT E NDE D US E W AS CA P AB L E OF C A U SI N G D E A T H A N D SE R I O U S B O D I L Y I N J U R Y , and the def endant w as i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng and att empt i ng t o comm i tt he o ff en se of A R S O N u p o n M IC H A E L P A U L A N D R A D E [ .] T h e trial co u rt in stru c ted th e ju ry “ to f in d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u iltyo f

th is o f f e n se a s c h a rg e d in t he i ndi ct m ent . ” The j ur yr etur ned a ge ner al ver di ctfi ndi ng t he appe l l ant“gui l t yof ca pi t al
m u rd e r a s c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t.” T he appe l l antpl eade d gui l t yt o an i ndi ct m entt hatal l eged a l te r nat i ve theor i es of
c o m m itt in g th e sa m e o f f e n se . T h e ju ry ’s g e n e ra l v e rd ict d id n o t v io late th e u n a n im ity req u ir em en t un d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s. P o ints of erro r sev en , eigh t, n ine, a n d te n are 16
overrul ed. In p o in t o f

e rro r e lev e n , the a p p e ll a n t c laim s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d “ in f a ili n g toLUNA

- - 12

17 Rayford v. State, 125 S.W .3d 521, 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). s uppr es s i t ems found dur i ng a s ear ch of t he apart m ent w her e [t he appe l l ant ] w as an overni ght g u e st, w h e n th e p o lice h a d n o w a rra n t, no c o n se n t f ro m [ th e a p p e llan t] a n d n o o th e r v a lid
exce pt i on t o t he Four t h A m endment exi s t ed t o justi fy t hei ract i on. ” I n r evi ew i ng a tr i al
co u rt ’s ruli n g o n a m o ti o n to su p p re s s , w e g ive a lm o st t o tal d ef ere n ce to a tri al co u rt ’s d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

h i s t o r i c a l f

a c t s , a n d we r e v i e w de novo t he tr i al cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he l a w. 17 De t e c t i v e Ap r i l Ti tu s t e s t i f i e d a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g t h a tp o l i c e r e c e i v e d a Cr i me St opper s t i p nami ng t he appe l l antas a s us pect . T he ca l l eri n d icat ed thatt he appe l l anthad
us ed hi s gi r l fr i end M ar i a’ s apart m ent t o acc es s t he vi ct i m ’ s apart m entt hr ough t hei rs har ed at t i c cr aw l s pace . T he ca l l ers t at ed thatt he appe l l antcoul d be found atM ar i a’ s apart m ent
orathi s s i s t er ’ s r es i dence
. T i tus s poke t o a mai nt enanc e man att he v ict i m ’ s apart m entcompl ex af t erpol i ce
r ece i ved the C r i m e St opper s t i p. She s how ed hi m a phot ogr aph of the appe l l ant , w hom he
r ecogni zed a s a per s on w ho had been “ comi ng and goi ng” fr om apart m ent1002. T i tus t hen
s p o k e t o t h e ma n a g e r a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h a ta p a r t me n t1 0 0 2 wa s l e a s e d t o M a r i a S o l i s . T wo ot her offi cer s w entt o Sol i s ’ s pl ace of empl oy m entt o s ee i f s he w oul d w i l l i ngl yt al k t o t hem and gi ve a s t at ement . Sol i s t hen w en t to T it u s’ offi ce, w her e s he s i gned a w r i t t en cons ent for m forpol i ce t o sear ch herapart m ent . Sol i s t ol d T i tus t hatt he appe l l anthad s pentt he p re v io u s n ig h t at h e r a p a rtm e n t an d th a t h e w a s still th e re . S h e sta ted th a t th e a p p e llan t to ldLUNA

- - 13

18 State’s Exhi bit A is the consent to search for m that Soli s signe d on Februar y 21, 2005. 19 State’s Ex hibit B is the “stateme nt inf ormation supplement” form that the appe llant completed. hert hathe had e nt er ed the v ict im ’s a p art m entt hr ough t he cr aw l s pace and thathe had i nt ended t o s t eal fr om t he vi ct i m . H e expl ai ned t hat t he vi ct i m s aw hi m , s o he “di d w hathe had t o do” t o keep pol i ce f r om comi ng aft erSol i s and t aki ng herchi l d aw ay . Sol i s s t at ed that th e a p p e llan t h a d so m e c lo th in g a n d o th e r item s a t h e r a p a rtm e n t. W h e n T itu s a sk e d S o lis if th e a p p e llan t liv e d w ith h e r a n d if h e k e p t a to o th b ru sh a t h e r a p a rtm e n t, sh e a n sw e re d b o th ques t i ons “no. ” Sol i s s t at ed t hatt he appe l l ants t ay ed w i t h her “on and off” and t hat“s he had bot h s et s of key s t o herapart m ent . ” T he appe l l antl at ert ol d T i tus t hat“he w as li v ing at h is si s t er ’ s hom e. ” W hen the ap p ell an t com p let ed a “ stat em en t i n fo rm ati o n su p p lem en t” f o rm , h e p rov ided h is si ster’s
n a m e a n d a d d re ss in th e se c tio n a sk in g f o r in f o rm a tio n o n h is n e a re st re lativ e , b u t h e w ro te do w n a d i fferent l ocati on as hi s hom e add res s. H e w as not l i st ed o n the l ease for So l i s’
a p a rtm e n t. T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied th e a p p e llan t’s m o tio n to su p p re ss , sta tin g a s f o llo w s: T H E C O U R T : O k a y . T h e ru lin g o n th is i ss u e is lo o k in g a t b o th of t he exhi bi t s t hathave be en i nt r oduced, s peci fi cal l yE xhi bi tN um ber 1, deal s w i t h t he i s s ue of s t andi ng. E xhi bi t N um ber A [ ] deal s w i t h t he 18 i ssue of w hetheror not there w as l aw ful con sent t o en t er the p rem i ses. I ’ m goi ng t o fi nd, bas ed on the uncontr over t ed t es t i m ony , t hatt he defe n d a n t h a d n o s t a n d i n g , l o o k i n g a t St a t e ’ s Ex h i b i t B[ ] a n d t he 19 addr es s es he has l i s t ed i n t he exhi bi t , t o chal l enge t h e le gal i t yof t he se a rc h a t th a t ap a rtm e n t.LUNA

- - 14

20 Johnson v. State, 226 S.W .3d 439, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 21 Kothe v. State, 152 S.W .3d 54, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), citing Rakas v. I llinois , 43 9 U .S. 128, 139 (1978).

22 Id. 23 See M innesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98 (1990). Ho we v e r , I ’ m a l s o g o i n g t o f i n d , i n t h e e v e n tt h a tt h e r e i s s o me di s agr eementatt he appel l at e cour t l evel on t hi s m at t er , t hateven i f t hey fi nd t he defenda nt had st andi ng, cl ear l y M ar i a S ol i s w as t he re s i dentof t ha ta p a r t me n t . Sh e p r o v i d e d l a wfu l c o n s e n tt o s e a r c h t h e a p a r t ment pur s uantt o St at e’ s E xhi bi tA , and al l t he t es t i m ony t hatt hi s offi cerhas of fe r e d. A nd she w as t he pe r s on on t he l e a s e . She ha d the ke y s . So s he had t he aut hor i t y t o al l ow l aw enfor cementt o ent ert hatr es i dence a n d se a rc h it. S o a n y e v id e n c e th a t w a s se ize d a s a re su lt o f th a t at th is poi nti s admi s s i bl e. T he Four th A m endment pr ot ect s i ndi vi dual s “aga i ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and
se izu re s.” A n y d e f

e n d a n t s e e k in g to su p p re ss e v id e n c e o b tain e d in v io latio n o f th e F o u rth 20 A m endment m us tfi r s ts how t hathe per s onal l y had a r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacyt hat th e g o v e rn m e n t in v a d e d
. O n ly a f ter a d e f e n d a n t h a s es tab lish e d h is s tan d in g to c o m p lain 21
m ay a courtcons i derw hetherhe has s uffe r ed a s ubs t ant i ve Four t h A m endment vi ol at i on. 22 A n “overni ghtgues t ” has a l egi t i m at e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n his h o st’ s hom e. 23 T he ap pell ant cl ai m s thathe h as st and i ng t o rai se a Fo urt h A m end m ent com plai nt because he w as an “ove r ni ghtgues t ” atSol i s ’ apart m ent . T he tr i al courtrul ed thatt he appe l l ant l acke d s t andi ng t o chal l enge t he l egal i t yof t he s ear ch. B utT i tus t es t i fi ed thatSol i s s ai d t he
a p p e llan t sta y e d a t h e r a p a rtm e n t th e n ig h t b e f o re sh e g a v e c o n se n t to se a rc h :LUNA

- - 15

24 Johnson, 226 S.W .3d at 443. Q
. A nd dur i ng t he conve r sati o n di d [Sol i s ] t el l y ou [t he appe l l ant ] w as there o n that d aythat y o u w ere tal k ing to h er? A
. Y es. Q
. D id sh e tell y o u w h e th e r h e h a d sp e n t th e n ig h t th e re o r n o t? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd w hat- - w hatdi d s he t el l y ou, t hathe had? A
. Y es . A nd t hatw hen s he w oke up thatm or ni ng he w as s t i l l t her e. Q
. A nd s he l efthi m . I m ean, he
- - he r emai ned i n t he apa r t m entaft ers he lef t? A
. C o rre c t. Q
. D i d s he t el l y ou - - di d s he t el l y ou how l ong pr i or t o y ouri nt er vi ew he h a d b e e n a t th a t ap a rtm e n t? A
. N o . N o t th a t I re c a ll. Q
. W hatel s e di d y ou as k her aft er t hat ? W hat di d
- - di d y ou ever- - how d id y o u a p p ro a c h th e su b jec t o f e n ter in g h e r a p a rtm e n t? A
. I had as ked herforcons ent to g o int o herapart m entand s ear ch for i t ems t hatm ayhave be en t aken f r om t he com pl ai nant ’ s hom e. A nd d u rin g th a t co n v e rsa tio n sh e in d ica ted to m e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s s til l in h e r a p a rtm e n t. E v e n if w e a ss u m e th a t th e a p p e llan t h a s s tan d in g a s a n “ o v e rn ig h t g u e st,” h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im f

a ils o n its m e rits. A w a rra n tles s se a rc h is p re su m p tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le unl es s i tfal l s w i t hi n t he s cope of one of a few w el l
- del i neat ed exce pt i ons . For exampl e, 24LUNA

- - 16

25 Balentine, 71 S.W .3d 763, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), citing United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974).

26 The a ppellant likens this case to Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 120 (2006), in which the United States Supreme Court a ddresse d the i s s u e o f consent for co- inhabitants of share d premises. The Supreme Court he ld that “ a war rantless search of a

share d dwellingfor e videnceover theex press re fu sa l of

c on se nt b y

a phy sic a lly

pre se nt re sid e nt c ann ot b e jus tif ie d a s r e a so na

bleto him on the basis of consent g iven to the police by another re s i d en t . ” Ho weve r, therewas no evidenc e at the suppression hearing that the appellant wa s any thing more than an overnight gue st as described in Minnesota v. Olson. 495 U.S. at 98. Nor wa s there a ny evidenc e that the appe llant was bo th p hysic a lly

pre se nt and

expressly ref used conse nt. Randolph, 547 U.S. at 120. a t hir d p artym ayproperl ycon sentt o a search w hen she has con t rol ov er and au t ho ri t yt o u se t he pr emi s es bei ng s ear ched. T he evi dence i n t hi s cas e demonstr at es t hatSol i s had contr ol 25
overand author i t yt o us e t he apa r t m ent . H ern am e w as on t he apa r t m entl eas e and s he pos s es s ed bot h s et s of key s t o t he dw el l i ng. She deni ed thatt he appe l l ant l i ved w i t h herand
e x p lain e d th a t h e sta y e d w ith h e r o n ly “ o n a n d o f f.” F u rth e r, alth o u g h th e a p p e llan t h im se lf
s t at ed that he l i ved at hi s s i s t er ’ s hom e, he l i s t ed a di ffe r enthom e addr es s on hi s “s t at ement in f o rm a tio n su p p lem e n t” f o rm . T h e se a rc h o f

S o lis’ a p a rtm e n t w a s su p p o rte d b yh e r v a lid
cons ent . T he t r i al cour tdi d noterri n deny i ng t he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on t o su p p r es s t he

26 evi dence obt ai ned as a r es ul tof t he w arr ant l es s s ear ch. Poi ntof err orel even i s overrul ed. I n poi ntof err ort w el ve, t he appe l l antar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed i n admi t t i ng t he extr aneou s o ffens e vi ct i m i m pactt es t i m onyof Phi l l i p Set t l es and M i chae l M cG l oughl i n. T h e S tate p re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t th e a p p e llan t b ro k e in to S e ttl e s’ a p a rtm e n t in th e m id d le of t he ni ghti n J ul y1998. T he pros ecut or as ked Set t l es , “D i d t hats car e y ou?” H e r epl i ed,

“ M a ’ a m, I f

e e l v e r y l u c k yt o d a y . Ve r yl u c k yi n d e e d t h a tn o n e o f myf a mi l yg o th u r t . ” AtLUNA

- - 17

27 T EX R. A PP . P. 33.1. 28 Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W .2d 602, 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). t hatpoi nt , defe ns e couns el obj ect ed that “thos e ar en’ t char ges w e’ r e bei ng t r i ed on, ” and the t r i al cour t overrul ed t he obj ect i on. T hi s w as fol l ow ed bya br eak i n t he pr ocee di ngs w i t h t he j ur ynotpr es ent . D ur i ng t he br eak, defe ns e couns el cl ar i fi ed thathe “w as obj ect i ng t o t he
v ictim im p a c t sta tem e n t p a rt o f th a t.” T h e trial co u rt re sp o n d e d th a t th e c lar if ica tio n w o u ld b e “ n o te d f

o r t h e re c o rd .” A t i m el yand s pec ifi c o bje ct i on i s r equi r ed t o pr es er ve err orforappea l
. I f a 27 defe ndantfai l s t o obj ect unt i l aft er an obj ect i onabl e quest i on has been a s ked and a ns w er ed, and he can s how no l egi t i m at e r eas on t o j us t i fyt he del ay , hi s obj ect i on i s unt i m el y , and any
c laim o f e rro r is f

o rf e ited
. T h e a p p e lla n t’ s o bjec tio n to S e ttl e s’ te stim o n yw a s u n tim e ly

28 b e c a u s e it w a s m a d e a f

te r t h e q u e s tio n w a s a s k e d a n d a n s w e re d
. T h e S tate a lso p re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t th e a p p e llan t a n d o th e rs b ro k e in to M cLoughl i n’ s hom e i n t he ea r l ym or ni ng hour s i n J une 2004. T he prosecut oras ked M c L o u g h lin to tell th e ju ryw h a t h e f e lt l ik e th a t n ig h t. D e f e n se c o u n se l m a d e a tim e ly obj ect i on t o “extr aneous vi ct i m i m pactevi dence , ” w hi ch the tri al c o u r toverrul ed. M cLoughl i n t hen t es t i fi ed t h at h e w as afr ai d t hatt he as s ai l ant s w oul d ki dnap hi s y oung d a u g h t e ro rw o u l d h u r to rk i l l h i m o rh i s f a m i l y. V i ct i m - i m pact evi dence i n a hom i ci de cas e i s evi dence of t he effec t of an offe ns e onLUNA

- - 18

29 Roberts v. State, 2 2 0 S. W. 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 1 ( T e x. Crim
. Ap p . ) , cert. denied, 128 S. Ct . 282 (2007). 30 Id. 31 Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W .3d 189, 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 32 Id. 33 Id. peopl e other t han t he vi ct i m . T he evi dence at i s s ue her e i s evi dence of t he fe arexper i ence d 29 byt he vi ct i m of th e ext r aneous offe ns e dur i ng t he bur gl ary . T hus , i ti s notvi ct i m - i m pact evi dence i n t hi s cas e. T h e t r i al cour tdi d noterri n admi t t i ng t he t es t i m onyof ei t her 30 M cLoughl i n orSet t l es . Poi ntof err ort w el ve i s overrul ed. I n poi ntof err ort hi r t een, t he appe l l antar gues t hatt he tr i al cour ts houl d have
s uppr es s ed t he i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyof St at e’ s w i t nes s C andi do T ovar . H e cont ends t hat T o v a r ’ s in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n w a s ta in ted b ya n im p e rm iss ib lysu g g e stiv e p re trial p h o to
a rr a y . A n in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n is in a d m iss ib le w h e n it h a s b e en tai nted byan im pe rm iss ib ly
su g g e stiv e p re trial p h o to g ra p h ic id e n tific a tio n . T h e tes t is w h e th e r, c o n sid e rin g th e to tality 31
o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, “ th e p h o to g ra p h ic id e n tific a tio n p r o c e d u re w a s s o im p e rm iss ib ly
s u g g e s tiv e a s to g iv e ri s e to a v e ry su b s ta n tia l lik e lih o o d o f ir re p a ra b le m is id e n tif

ic a tio n .” 32 R el i abi l i t yi s t he l i nchpi n i n det er m i ni ng t he admi s s i bi l i t yof i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony . T he 33 fol l ow i ng fi ve non- excl us i ve fa ct or s s houl d be “w ei ghed agai ns t t he corrupt i ng eff ectof anyLUNA

- - 19

34 Id ., c iting Ne il v . B igge rs, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972). s ugges t i ve i dent i fi cat i on proc ed u re i n as s es s i ng r el i abi l i t yundert he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s ”: ( 1) t he oppor tuni t yof t he w i t nes s t o vi ew t he cr i m i nal att he t i m e of the
cr i m e; ( 2) t he w i t nes s ’ degr ee of at t ent i on; ( 3) t he acc ur acy of t he w i t nes s ’ pr i ordes cr i pt i on of t he cr i m i nal ; ( 4) t he l evel of ce r t ai nt ydemonst r at ed byt he w i t nes s att he conf r ont at i on, and ( 5) t he l engt h of t i m e betw een the cr i m e and the conf r ont at i on. 34 T he tr i al cour thel d a pr etr i al hear i ng on t he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he phot ogr aphi c i dent i fi cat i on. T ovar , t he compl ai nanti n an extr aneous aggr avat ed r obber yon M ar ch 2 3 , 2 004, t es t i fi ed att he hea r i ng t hathe fi r s tat t empt ed t o m ake a pos s i bl e s us pect i dent i fi cat i on “t he nextday
. ” Tovart es t i fi ed thathe “kne w exac tl y ” w hathi s as s ai l ant l ooked l i ke and thathe had “ des cr i bed hi m compl et el y . ” H e t es t i fi ed t hat t he “bi gges tt hi ng” he rem em b ere d w as t he t at t oo on t he bac k of t he as s ai l ant ’ s head. H e met w i t h D et ect i ve Ri c h a r d Le o n a r d o f

t h e S a n An t o n i o P o l i c e De p a r t me n t , wh o t o l d h i m t o l o o k t h r o u g h s o me p i c tu r e s o f p e o p l e “ t h a t c o mm i t t e d t h e s e k i n d o f c r i me s b e f o r e . ” T o v a r v i e we d “ q u i t e a f e w” pi ctur es on a comput er . H e t es t i fi ed t hatt her e w er e “mul t i pl e pi ctur es ” on ea ch page , “but y ou coul d zoom i n i f y ou w ant ed t o and go one byone. ” H e w as unabl e t o i dent i fyany one
a t th a t tim e . T ovar t es t i fi ed t hat he r etur ned t o L eonar d’ s offi ce agai n about a w eek l at erand vi ew ed mul t i pl e phot ogr aphs on a comput ers cr een and on paper . T he fi r s tt i m e Tovarm et
w i t h hi m , L eo n ard m ist akenl yt houghtT ovars ai d he had s een a t at t oo on t he bac k of t heLUNA

- - 20

as s ai l ant ’ s neck. T he s econd t i m e theym et , T ovarcl ar i fi ed that he had s een a t at t oo on t he back of t he as s ai l ant ’ s head. T ovar deni ed t hat L eonar d s ai d anyt hi ng s ugges t i ve bef or e he vi ew ed the phot ogr aphs
. L eonar d appea r ed t o be “st ar t l ed” w hen he s how ed T ovar t he pape r
a rr a y th a t c o n ta in e d th e a p p e lla n t’ s p h o to g ra p h , b e c a u s e T o v a r “ p o in te d h im o u t r ig h t a w a y ,”

“ b e f o r e h e e v e n p u t t h e p a p e r d o w n . ” A f t e r T o v a ri d e n t i f

i e d t h e a p p e l l a n ti n t h e p a p e ra r r a y, L eonar d s how ed hi m a phot o of t he t at t oo on t he back of t he appel l ant ’ s head, w hi ch Tovar al s o r ecogni zed. T ovar fur t her t es t i fi ed t hat L eonar d cal l ed hi m t he nextdayand s ai d t hat h e h a d i d e n t i f

i e d th e r i g h tg u y. L eo n ard ’s t esti m o n yat t h e p retri al he aring v aried sli g h tl y fro m that o f T o v ar. L eo n ard t es t i fi ed att he pr e- t r i al hear i ng t hathe s how ed Tov ar “n ea rl y900 phot ogr aphs ” i n t he
c o m p u ter ize d “ m u g b o o k ” o n tw o se p a ra te o c c a sio n s a t h is o f f ice , an d T o v a r f

a iled to i dent i fyany one. H ow ever , w hen he metw i t h T ovara thi rd ti m e an d s how ed hi m a pape r
arr ayof s i x phot os , T ovari dent i fi ed the appe l l ant . T he pr osecut orques t i oned Leonar d as foll ow s: Q
. A nd w hen y ou pr es ent ed t hat phot o l i neup t o M r . T ovar , how di d y ou p r e s e n ti tt o h i m? A
. I - - I s ati tdow n i n fr ontof hi m and I t ol d hi m , O kay , t her e’ s a s us pect in t hi s l i neup. I can’ tt el l y ou w ho i ti s . L etm e know i f t her e’s anybodyt hatl ooks fami l i art o y ou. Q
. Y ou t ol d hi m t her e w as a s us pecti n t he l i neup? A
. W e have
- - w e have a s us pect and w e’ ve pl ace d hi m i n t he l i neup, and l e tm e k n o w i f

t h e r e ’ s a n yb o d y t h a tl o o k s s u s p i c i o u s t o yo u . I ’ m s o r r y. E xcus e me. T hatl ooks fami l i art o y ou.LUNA

- - 21

Q
. A nd di d he r ecogni ze a ny one? A. As I wa s l a y i n g i td o wn , h e p o i n t e d i tt o h i m a n d s a i d , Th a t ’ s h i m.

* * * Q. I ’ m g o i n g t o s h o w y o u wh a t ’ s b e e n a d mi t t e d a s S t a t e ’ s E x h i b i t1 6 2
- A. I s t hatt he copyof t he phot o l i neup thathe pi cked s om eone outof? A
. Y es, i ti s. Q
. W hi ch phot ogr aph di d he pi ck? A
. N um ber6. Q
. A nd [w ho i s ] s how n i n t hatphot ogr aph? A
. [T h e a p p ell an t]
. Q
. A nd aft erhe r ecogni zed [ t he appe l l ant ] , di d he -- di d y ou have hi m s i gn and dat e t hatphot ogr aph? A
. I di d. Q
. O k a y. D et ect i ve Leonar d, I’m g o ing t o as k y ou t o l ook atpage f ourof y our report , t he en t ryt hat’ s dat ed A ug ust11 t h o f 04 , 15 : 17 ho urs. A
. O k a y. Q
. I n t her e - - do y ou have i n y ourr epor tt haty ou t ol d hi m t hatt her e w as a s us pecti n t he l i neup? A
. N o. Q
. O k a y. A n d s o i s t h a tj u s ts o m e t h i n g t h a tyo u h a v e r e m e m b e r e d t o d a y? A
. N o . I d o n ’ t sp e c if ica llyre m e m b e r sa y in g th e re w a s a su sp e c t. I t o ld h im th e re w a s so m e b o d y , a su sp e c t, I j u st us e d th a t w o rd , an in d iv id u a l.LUNA

- - 22

Q
. T hat ’ s t he i s s ue w e’ r e her e on r i ghtnow . S o i t ’ s veryi m por t antt hat y ou ar e v ery sp ec ifi c aboutw haty ou t ol d hi m . T ake a m i nut e and r emem ber exac t l y w hat i ns t ruct i ons y ou gave M r . T ovar w h en y ou handed hi m t hatl i neup. (Pause i n P roceedings) A
. W e ll I tryto k e e p to th e sa m e sc rip t ev e rytim e . W h a t I -- w h a t I w o u ld t e l l t h e m , a n d I ’ l l s a y i ti s e x a c t l y a s I a l w a ys s a y t o p e o p l e : O k a y. W h a t w e h a v e a re six in d iv id u a ls. T h e su sp e c t m a yo r m a yn o t b e in t he l i neup. W e can’ t t el l y ou. Y ou j us tneed t o l etus know i f anybody loo k s fa m il iar. Q
. S o is t hat w hat y ou rem em ber t el l i ng M r. T ov ar, or w hat y ou said b ef o re? W h ich -- A
. W el l t hat ’ s w hat I us e every t i m e. W hen I
- - I s ai d, W el l t h e su sp ect m aybe i n her e. I ’ m j us tgoi ng t hr ough -
- I w as par aphr as i ng. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, L eonar d acknow l edged thathe coul d nots ayw hether T ovarhad previ ou sl y seen the ot her fi ve pho t os i n the ar ray . A ny on e of t he ot her fi ve pho to s c o u ld h a v e b e e n in th e c o m p u te ri z e d “ m u g b o o k .” Th e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e mot i o n t o s u p p r e s s , a n d To v a r s u b s e q u e n t l y ma de an i ncour ti dent i fi cat i on of t he appe l l ant . T ovart es t i fi ed at t r i al t hatt he appe l l antw as t he per s on
w h o c a rja c k e d h im o n th e n ig h t o f M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e a p p e llan t f o rc e d h is w a yin to T o v a r’s tru c k a t g u n p o in t, th e n m a d e T o v a r d riv e to a n o th e r lo c a ti o n w h e re h e b o u n d h im
w i t h ductt ape a nd l efthi m befor e t aki ng off i n hi s t ruck. T ovarw as eventual l yabl e t o fr ee h im se lf a n d w e n t to a g a s s tat io n w h e re h e c a lled th e p o lice . T h e p ro se c u to r c o n tin u e d to qu est i on T ov ar as foll ow s: Q
. D i d t he pol i ce then come and t ake a r epor tfr om y ou?LUNA

- - 23

A
. Y es. Q
. A nd w hi l e y ou w er e - - how l ong d o y o u t hi nk y ou w er e fa ce- t o- fac e w ith th is d e f

e n d a n t? A
. Face- t o- fac e? Q
. O r h o w long -
- how m uch t i m e di d y ou s pend w i t h hi m w her e y ou coul d l ook athi s fac e? A
. A l l t he t i m e t hatI w as dr i vi ng w hen w e w er e dr i vi ng. Q
. A n d h o w lo n g w a s th a t? A
. I guess abou tatl east10 m i nu t es t o 2 0 m i nu t es. Q
. A n d h e n e v e r h a d a n y th in g c o v e rin g h is f a c e . R ig h t? A
. N o. W el l he had a m ous t ache and goat ee, and he w as w ear i ng [a] cap. Y ou coul d t el l he w as t r y i ng t o covert he t at t oo on t he bac k. Q
. Y ou s aw a t at t oo on t he bac k of hi s head? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd can y ou des cr i be thatt at t oo? A
. It ’s [si c] co vers t he
-- t he w ho l e back si de of his head
. A nd l i ke thorns, o r f ire , o r f lam e s, o r so m e th in g lik e th a t. Q
. A nd di d y ou descr i be thatt at t oo t o t he pol i ce of fi cert hatarr i ved that n ig h t? A
. Y es. T ovarfur t her t es t i fi ed t hat he l at erm etw i t h D et ect i ve Leonar d t w i ce a nd l ooked atnum er ous p h o to s. H e re c o g n ize d th e a p p e llan t in th e las t p h o to lin e u p “ b e f o re [ L e o n a rd ] e v e n p u t it
o n th e tab le.” T h e p ro se c u to r as k e d , “ A n d h o w d id y o u re c o g n ize th a t p e rso n , o r w h e re d idLUNA

- - 24

35 See B uxton v. State, 699 S.W .2d 212, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). y o u re c o g n iz e th a t p e rs o n f ro m ? ” T o v a r re s p o n d e d , “ F ro m th e tim e th a t I w a s c a rj a c k e d .” He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f

t e r h e i d e n t i f

i e d t h e a p p e l l a n ti n t h e p h o t o a r r a y , Le o n a r d s h o we d h i m a phot o of t he appe l l ant ’ s t at t oo. H e s ai d he r ecogni zed the t at t oo “[f ] r om t he t i m e thatI got
c a rj a c k e d th a t n ig h t.” T he phot o arr ay , l abel ed S t at e’ s E xhi bi t162, cont ai ns heads hot s of t he appe l l antand fi ve other m al es . A l l of t hem ar e w ear i ng gl as s es and have m ous t ache s and/ orgoat ees . T he aA ppel l antcompl ai ns t hatt he otherm en s how n have “ not abl yful l er fac es ” and that“[t ] he one gl ar i ng di ffe r ence i s t hat[t he appe l l ant ] appea r s t o be ei t hert ot al l ybal d, ort o have ha d hi s head c l ean s haven. ” H ow ever , l i neup part i ci pant s need notbe i dent i cal t o s at i s fydue pr oces s r equi r ement s . Fur t her , gi ven thatT ovart es t i fi ed thatt he appe l l antw as w ear i ng a 35
ca p at t h e ti m e o f th e c ri m e, his h air l en g th w as n o t nec essa ri lya d eterm inative f ac tor. T h e a p p ell an t po ints ou t th at T o v ar m ighth a v e a lre a d y se e n th e f iv e o th e r p h o to s in t he arr ay . T hi s i s s pecul at i ve. L eonar d coul d not s ay for s ur e w hetheranyof t he otherfi ve ph o tos i n St at e’ s E xhi bi t162 came fr om t he 900 phot os pr evi ous l yvi ew ed byT ovar . T he appel l antcompl ai ns t hatL eonar d i ncr eas ed the l i kel i hood of i dent i fi cat i on byt el l i ng T ovar to lo o k th ro u g h p ictu re s o f p e o p le “ th a t co m m itt e d th e se k in d o f c rim e s b e f

o re ,” b u t it appea r s t hatL eonar d m ade thi s s t at ement i n r efe r ence t o t he comput er i zed “ m ug book, ” not S ta te ’s E x h ib it 1 6 2
. T he appel l antal s o ar gues t hatL eonar d “bol s t er ed i n M r . T ovar ’ s m i nd t he ac cur acyLUNA

- - 25

36 See I barra, 11 S.W .3d at 196. 37 Masterson v. State, 155 S.W .3d 167, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). of t he i dent i fi cat i on he had m ade, by t el l i ng hi m t hathe had got‘ t he r i ghtguy . ’ ” A l t hough t hi s m ay have been s ugges t i ve, i t w as not s o s ugges t i ve as t o pr es ent a very su b stan ti al li k eli h o o d fori r r epar abl e mi s i dent i fi cat i on. T ovarhad a good opportuni t yt o vi ew t he appel l antand hi s t at t oo dur i ng t he cr i m e. H e t es t i fi ed thathe “kne w exac t l y ” w hatt he appel l antl ooked l i ke and t hat he “des cr i bed hi m compl et el y ” t o pol i ce. L eonar d t es t i fi ed t hat “the artw or k on t he t at t oo w as r eal di s t i nct i ve the w ayi t w as des cr i bed” by T ovar . W hen T ovari dent i fi ed the appel l ant i n t he phot o arr ay about a w eek a ft ert he cr i m e, he “s t ar t l ed” L e o n a rd b yp o in tin g th e a p p e llan t o u t so q u ick ly . L e o n a rd d e sc rib e d T o v a r a s “ p o sitiv e ” in hi s i dent i fi cat i on of t he appe l l ant . W ei ghi ng t hi s evi denc e of r el i abi l i t yagai ns tt he
su g g e stiv e n e ss o f L e o n a rd ’s sta tem e n t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t n o su b sta n tial risk o f irre p a ra b le
m isi d en ti fi cat i on w as cr eat ed s o as t o denyt he appe l l antdue pr oces s . Poi ntof err or 36 t hi r t een i s over rul ed. In p o in t o f e rro r fo u rte e n , th e a p p e llan t a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in re f u sin g to al l ow defe ns e couns el t o “cl os e the ar gum ent s on m i t i gat i on. ” The appel l antacknow l edges t hatw e have pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed t hi s t ype of c l ai m . W e d ec l i ne t o r evi s i tt he i s s ue her e. 37 P o in t o f e rr o r f o u rt e e n is o v e rr u le d
. In p o ints o f

erro r fifteen an d sixteen , the a p p ell an t asserts th at t h e tri al co u rt
err oneous l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on t o p rec l ude the dea t h penal t yas a s ent enci ng opt i on. T heLUNA

- - 26

38 Blakely v. W ashington, 54 2 U .S. 29 6 ( 20 04 ); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S
. 5 8 4 (2 0 02); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

39 Roberts, 22 0 S. W.3 d at 53 5; Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W .3d 654, 671-72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), citing Rayford v. State, 125 S.W .3d 521, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). appel l antar gued i n t he m ot i on t hat A r t i cl e 37. 071 vi ol at es t he Four t eenth A m endment r i ght t o equal pr ot ect i on beca us e “ther e ar e no uni fo rm , stat ew i de s t andar ds t o gui de Texas pr os ecut or s i n deci di ng w hen t hey s houl d s eek the dea t h penal t y . ” H e al s o compl ai ned i n t he
m ot i on t hatt he gr and j ur ydi d notcons i dert he puni s hm ents peci al i s s ues w hen dec idi ng
w hethert o i ndi cthi m , ci t i ng B la ke ly , R in g, and App rendi. H e as s er t s on appea l t hatt he 38 t r i al cour ts houl d have gr ant ed hi s m ot i on on t hes e base s . W e have pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed s uch cl ai m s . W e decl i ne t o r econs i der our hol di ngs i n t hes e cas es . Poi nt s of err orfi ft een a nd

39
s i xt een a r e overrul ed. I n poi ntof err ors event een, t he appe l l antas s er t s t hatA r t i cl e 37. 071 i s uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i t im p erm is s i bl ys hi ft s t he bur den of pr oof t o t he def endant
. I n poi ntof err or ei ght een, he ar gues t hat t he “10- 12 R ul e” i s uncons t i tut i onal
. I n poi nt of er r or ni net een, he
a rg u e s th a t A rticle 3 7 .0 7 1 v io late s th e E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts b e c a u se it fa ils to d e f in e th e te rm s “ p ro b a b ility,” “ c ri m in a l ac ts o f v io le n c e ,” “ c o n tin u in g th re a t to s o c ie ty,” “per s onal m or al cul pabi l i t y , ” and “ m or al bl amew or t hi nes s . ” I n point o f erro rt w ent y , he
c o m p lain s th a t th e u se o f th e in d e f

in ite te rm “ p ro b a b ili ty ” in A rticle 3 7 .0 7 1 is
uncons t i tut i onal beca us e the j ur y“coul d have a ppl i ed an y d ef ini t i on t o t he t er m . . . even i nt erpr et i ng i tas r equi r i ng farl es s t han a 50% chanc e of r ecurr ing v iole nce. ” I n poi ntofLUNA

- - 27

40 Threadgill, 14 6 S. W.3d at 67 1; Russeau v. State, 171 S.W .3d 871, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), cert. de nied, 12 6 S. Ct. 29 82 (2 00 6) ; Conner v. State, 67 S.W .3d 192, 203 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 01 ); Murphy v . State, 11 2 S.W.3 d 592 , 606 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 03 ); Druery v . State, 225 S.W .3d 491, 509 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. de nied, 12 8 S. Ct. 62 7 ( 20 07 ); Robison v . State, 888 S.W .2d 473, 48 1- 82 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 4) ; Renteria v. State, 206 S.W .3d 689, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Prystash v. State, 3 S.W. 3d 52 2, 53 6 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); Arnold v. State, 873 S.W .2d 27, 39-40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). e rro r tw e n ty -o n e , h e a ss e rts th a t th is C o u rt is c o n stitu tio n a llyre q u ire d to c o n d u c t a

“ c o m p a r a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e v i e w ” o n a p p e a l
. I n p o i n t s o f e r r o rt w e n t y- t w o a n d t w e n t ythree , the a p p ell an t com p lai n s tha t th e T ex as d ea th-p en alt ysch em e f ail s “ to req u ir e
m e a n in g f

u l ap p e llate re v iew o f

th e ju ry ’s r e sp o n se to th e m iti g a tio n sp e c ial iss u e ,” in vi ol at i on of t he Ei ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s an d A rt i cl e 44. 251. I n poi ntof err or t w enty - four , t he ap p ell ant chal l enges t he ver s i on of A r t i cl e 37. 071 underw hi ch he w as
s ent ence d beca us e i t fai l ed t o pr ovi de t he j ur y w i t h t he opt i on t o s ent ence hi m t o l i fe w i t hout p a ro le. W e h a v e re

jec ted a ll o f th e se c laim s in p re v io u s ca se s. A g a in , w e d e c lin e to re v isit 40 th e s e is s u e s in th is c a s e . P o in ts o f e rr o r s e v e n te e n th ro u g h tw e n ty-f o u r a re o v e rr u le d
. In p o int of

erro r t w en ty -five , the a p p ell an t con tend s tha t th e c o u rt ’s c h arg e to the ju ry on puni s hm entvi ol at ed hi s r i ght s undert he Ei ght h and Four t eenth A m en d m en t s t o t he U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n . H e a rgu es th at th e tri al co u rt“stray ed fro m the s tatu tory i ns t ruct i ons ” i n A r t i cl e 37. 071, § 2( d) ( 1) , w hi ch r equi r es t he t r i al cour tt o char ge the j ur yt hat in d e lib e ra tin g o n th e [ f

u tu re d a n g e ro u sn e ss a n d a n ti-p a rties ] iss u e s . . . it sh a ll cons i der al l evi dence admi t t ed at t he gui l t or i nnocenc e s t age and the puni s hm ents t age, i ncl udi ng evi dence of t he def endant ’ s backgro u nd or char act erort he ci r cumst ance s of t h e o ff en s e thatm i l i t at es fororm i t i gat es a g a in s t th e im p o s itio n o f th e d e a th p e n a lty.LUNA

- - 28

41 144 S.W .3d 503, 507-08 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004). 42 Id.; Almanza v. State, 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)(op. on re h’g ). 43 See Sc heanette, 144 S.W .3d at 507-08. 44 (continued...) Inst ead, the tr i al cou rtcharged t he jur yas fol l ow s: I n del i ber at i ng upon t he s peci al i s s ues , y ou s hal l cons i deral l evi dence admi t t ed i n t hi s cas e, i ncl udi ng evi dence of t he def endant ’ s backgr ound or ch a r a c t e ro rt h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f t h e o f f e n s e t h a tmi l i t a t e s f

o ro rm i t i gat es a g a i n s tt h e i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y. T he appel l ant as s er t s t hat t he t r i al cour terr ed “byappl y i ng t o t he mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue a versi o n o f the ins t ruct i on gi ven atar t . 37. 071 § 2( d) ( 1) , w hi ch s houl d have a ppl i ed t o t he futur e dange r ous nes s i s s ue al one. ” Thus, he ar gues thatt he tr ia l cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i on “conf l at ed” the futur e dange r ous nes s and mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ues and made t he i m pos i t i on
o f a d e a th s e n te n c e m o re lik e ly. W e pre vi ous l y r ej ect ed t hi s t ype of cl ai m i n Scheane t t e v. St at e. T he appe l l ant , l i ke 41 Scheane t t e, has fai l ed t o demonst r at e “egr egi ous har m . ” T he tr i al cour ther e i ns t ruct ed t he 42 ju ryo n m iti g a tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith A rticle 3 7 .0 7 1 , § 2 (e )(1 ), w h ich d ire c ts th e c o u rt to i ns t ruct t he j ur y t o t ake i nt o cons i der at i on “al l of t he evi dence ” w hen det er m i ni ng w het her t her e ar e suff

i ci ent m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o w arr ant t he i m pos i t i on of a s ent ence of l i fe i m pri sonm ent. T his st atute r e q u ires the jur yt o look at al l of the evidence an d n ot j ust 43 evi dence a j ur orm i ghtcons i dert o be mi t i gat i ng. B eca us e t he appel l ant ’ s j ur yw as ent i t l ed 44LUNA

- - 29

(...continued) 44 Id. at 508. 45 See id. to co n side r all o f t h e ev iden ce , an y v ariati o n s in th e l an g u ag e of the in stru cti o n d id n o t harm h im
. P o in t o f

e rro r tw e n ty -f

iv e is o v e rru led . W e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt. 45
D el i ver ed: O ct ober29, 2008 Publ i s h