## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P- 75, 479
D E M E T R I U S D E W A Y N E SM I T H , A ppel l ant

v . T HE S T AT E OF T E XAS ON DI RE CT AP P E AL F R O M C A U S E N O . 1 0 2 1 1 6 8 I N T H E 18 3 DI STRI CT C OURT RD HARRI S COUNTY
M E YE RS , J ., de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . K EASLE R , J. , f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o p in io n . P RI CE , W OMACK , and J OHNS ON , J J ., c o n c u r r e d . O P I N I O N A p p e lla n t w a s c o n v ic te d in J u n e 2 0 0 6 o f c a p ita l m u rd e r. T EX . P E N A L C OD E §19. 03( a) . B as ed upon the j ur y ’ s ans w er s t o t he s peci al i s s ues s etfor t h i n T exas C ode of C rim in a l P ro c e d u re a rticle 3 7 .0 7 1 § § 2 (b ) a n d 2 (e ), th e trial ju d g e se n ten c e d a p p e llan t toSMI TH -- 2

Unless otherw ise indicated, all future re ference s to Articles re fer to the Texas Code of 1 Criminal Procedure . d e a th . A rt . 3 7 .0 7 1 § 2 (g ). D ir e c t a p p e a l to th is C o u rt is a u to m a tic . A rt . 3 7 .0 7 1 § 2 (h ). 1 A ppel l antr ai s es t w enty - s i x poi nt s of err or , buthe does notchal l enge the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence . A ft err evi ew i ng appel l ant ’ s poi nt s of err or , w e fi nd them t o be w i t hout
m er i t . C ons equent l y , w e af fi r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm entand s ent ence of dea t h. Ap p e l l a n twa s c o n v i c t e d o f mu r d e r i n g mo r e th a n o n e p e r s o n d u r i n g th e s a me c ri m in a l tr a n s a c tio n . T EX . P E N A L C OD E §19. 03( a) ( 7) ( A ) . A br i ef s um m aryof the evi dence r evea l s t hatappel l anthad bee n dat i ng T amm i e W hi t e, a mot herof thr ee w ho
w a s s e p a ra ted f

ro m h e r h u sb a n d . A p p e llan t an d W h ite b ro k e u p in late Ja n u a ryo r e a rly F e b ru a ry o f

2 0 0 5 . O n th e a f

te rn o o n o f

M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , a t a p p ro x im a te ly 3 :1 5 p .m ., a p p e llan t ca lled W h ite o n h e r c e ll p h o n e a s s h e , h e r m o th e r, an d h e r sis ter w e re g o in g to the hos pi t al t o vi s i ta r el at i ve. A ppel l antt ol d W hi t e, “Y ou thi nk I ’ m pl ay i ng w i t h y ou, b itch ? Y o u ’re g o in g to d ie to d a y .” W h ite h e ld th e p h o n e so h e r m o th e r a n d sis ter c o u ld h e a r th e th re a ts. W h ite h u n g u p a n d a p p e llan t im m e d iate lyc a lled b a c k , b u t W h ite w o u ld
no tspeak to him . W hit e w as not concerned abo ut the call s. A nei ghborr eport ed thatear l i eron t he s ame day , s he w i t nes s ed appe l l antcl i m bi ng o v e r W h ite ’s p a tio f

e n c e . W h ite w a s n o t h o m e , a n d a p p e lla n t a p p e a re d to b e lo c k e d o u t. T hen ar ound 3: 00 p. m . , s he s aw appel l antagai n, s i t t i ng on W hi t e’ s por ch, butW hi t e’ s car w a s g o n e a t th e tim e . L a te r t h a t s a m e d a y , W h ite w a s h o m e w ith h e r e le v e n -ye a r- o ld d a u g h te r, K ri s tin a .SMI TH -- 3

Appellant did not threaten to harm Da nyale, Kristina’s three- year-old sister, who wa s 2 pla yingoutsi deat th etim ea s w e ll. K ristin a w a s p layi n g w ith so m e n e ig h b o rh o o d f rie n d s o n th e f

ro n t p o rc h , w h ile W h ite
wa s i n t h e b a c k b e d r o o m t a l k i n g o n th e p h o n e wi t h h e rs i s t e r , Ka t h e r i n e . At appr oxi m at el y6: 00 p. m . , appel l antcame up t o t he door . K r i s t i na tr i ed t o s t op hi m fr om ent er i ng herhom e, butappel l antpus hed heroutof the w ayand w enti ns i de. A ppel l ant
w e n tt o t h e b a c k b e d r o o m . O v e rt h e p h o n e , K a t h e r i n e tw i c e h e a r d W h i t e s a y, “[A ppel l ant ] , don’ tpl ayw i t h m e. ” K ather i ne then hea r d guns hot s and the phone w ent d e a d . A p p e lla n t s h o t W h ite in th e c h e s t, n e c k , a n d h e a d a t c lo s e ra n g e . M eanw hi l e, K r i s t i na had f ol l ow ed appe l l anti ns i de and gota kni fe f r om the ki t chen. I m m edi at el yfol l ow i ng t he guns hot s , K r i s t i na ca m e bac k outand t ol d t he other chi l dr en thatappel l anthad s hotherm om and t o run. K r i s t i na r an ar ound a ca r , dr opped th e k n if e , a n d g o t d o w n in a b a ll, c o v e ri n g h e r h e a d w ith h e r h a n d s to p ro te c t h e rs e lf. W i thi n a mi nut e, appel l antcame outof the hous e and a ppr oache d K r i s t i na. H e then s hot hertw i ce, once thr ough t he t op of the hea d, befor e runni ng off. A s he w as l eavi ng, w itn esse s h ea rd a p p ell an t saythat n o w h e w as g o ing to g et T am ara , ref erring to K ri sti n a’s four t een- y ear - ol d s i s t erw ho w as nothom e atthe t i m e. A ppel l antw as appr ehende d
s hor t l yther eaf

t er . T amar a, w ho had bee n t aken i nt o pr ot ect i ve cus t odyfol l ow i ng the thr eatt o herl i fe, r emai ned unharm ed. 2 I n poi nt s of err orone thr ough t hr ee, appel l antar gues thatthe tr i al cour terr ed by deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o quas h and amendi ng the i ndi ctm entt o i ns ertthe l anguage , “dur i ngSMI TH -- 4

the s ame cr i m i nal t r ans act i on. ” H e cl ai m s thi s vi ol at ed A r t i cl e 28. 10, due pr oces s , and h is ri g h t to a g ra n d -j u ry in d ic tm e n t u n d e r b o th th e f e d e ra l a n d s ta te c o n s titu tio n s . S p ec ifi ca ll y , ap p ell an t com p lai n s tha t th e a m en d m en t, w h ich w as m ad e b ef o re jury
se lec tio n b e g a n , tran sf

o rm e d th e c h a rg e d o f

f e n se f ro m tw o se p a ra te c o u n ts o f m u rd e r to o n e c o u n t o f

c a p ital m u rd e r. T h e re f o re , h e a lleg e s th a t th is a ltere d th e c h a rg e a g a in st h im
w i thoutpr opernot i ce. I n anal y zi ng t hes e i s s ues , s om e bac kgr ound i nform at i on i s hel pful . O n M ar ch 25, 20 05 , app el l ant w as charged b ycom plai nt w i th cap i t al m urder as fol l ow s: [A ppel l ant ] , her eaf

t ers t y l ed the D efe ndant , her et ofor e on oraboutM ar ch 24, 2005, di d t hen and ther e unl aw ful l y , dur i ng the s ame cr i m i nal tr a n s a c t i o n , i n t e n t i o n a l l ya n d k n o wi n g l yc a u s e th e d e a t h o f [ K] RI S T I NA HA RRI S b ySHO OTI NG [ HER ] W I TH A DEA DLY W EAPO N TO W I T, N A M E L Y A F IR E A R M , an d in ten tio n a llya n d k n o w in g lyc a u se th e d e a th o f TAM M I E HA RRI S b ySHO OTI NG [ HER ] W I TH A DEA DLY W E A P O N T O W I T , N A ME L Y A F I R E A R M. O n M ay23, 2005, appel l antw as i ndi ct ed bythe gr and j ury . I n t he t i t l e ar ea of the i ndi ctm ent , t he fe l onychar ge i s l i s t ed as “C A PI T A L M U R D E R . ” The bodyof the in d ictm e n t in o n e p a ra g ra p h sta tes : T he dul yor gani zed G r and J uryof H arr i s C ount y , T exas , pr es ent s i n t he D i stri ctC ou rtof H arr i s C ou nty , T exas, that i n H arr i s C ou nty , T exas, [appe l l ant ] , her eaf

t ers t y l ed the D efe ndant , her et ofor e on oraboutM ar ch 24 , 20 05 , did then and t here un l aw full y , i ntent i on al l yand kn ow i ng l ycause the d ea th o f K R IS T IN A H A R R IS b yS H O O T IN G K R IS T IN A H A R R IS W IT H A D E A D L Y W E A P O N , N A M E L Y A F IR E A R M , an d in ten tio n a lly a n d k n o wi n g l yc a u s e t h e d e a t h o f T AM M I E HAR RI S b yS HOOT I NG T AM M I E HAR RI S WI T H A DE ADL Y WEA P ON, NAMEL Y A F I R E A R M.SMI TH -- 5

O n A ugus t16, 2005, t he St at e s erved i t s “N ot i ce of I nt entt o Seek the D eath Penal t y . ” O n M ay4, 2006, appel l antfi l ed a M ot i on t o SetA s i de the I ndi ctm entbeca us e the Texas death penal t ys cheme i s uncons t i tut i onal . H e al s o fi l ed a mot i on t o decl ar e the Texas d e a th p e n a lty sc h e m e u n c o n s titu tio n a l a n d to p re c lu d e im p o s itio n o f th e d e a th p e n a lty. T h e se m o tio n s w e re d e n ied d u rin g th e in iti a l p re -tria l h e a rin g o n M a y4 , 2 0 0 6 . A t th is
s ame hear i ng, defe ns e couns el not ed thattheyhad bee n w or ki ng on t he mi t i gat i on i s s ues i n the ca s e fors ever al m ont hs . A ppel l antw as al s o arr ai gned bythe tr i al cour t . A ft er r eadi ng t he i ndi ctm ent , t he tr i al cour tas ked, “A l l r i ght . [A ppel l ant ] , t o t he off ens e of
c a p ita l m u rd e r, h o w d o y o u p le a d , g u ilty o r n o t g u ilty? ” A p p e lla n t p le a d e d “ n o t g u ilty.” O n M ay5, 2006, t he tr i al cour thear d t he St at e’ s r eques tt o amend t he i ndi ctm ent t o i ns er tt he phr as e, “dur i ng t he s ame cr i m i nal tr ans act i on. ” A ppel l antobj ect ed thatt he i ndi ctm entcoul d notbe amended underA r t i cl e 28. 10 beca us e the amended i ndi ctm ent
w oul d char ge an of

fens e notchar ged i n t he or i gi nal i ndi ctm ent . H e ar gued thatthe
or i gi nal i ndi ctm entchar ged tw o m ur der s i n one par agr aph and that , as s uch, the off ens es w er e i m pr oper l yj oi ned. H e cl ai m ed thatthe St at e nee ded t o s eek r e- i ndi ctm entand that an amendm entw oul d al s o vi ol at e the due- pr oces s cl aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. T he tr i al courtoverrul ed appe l l ant ’ s obj ect i on butal l ow ed appe l l antl eave t o fi l e a mot i on t o quas h t he i ndi ctm ent . T he amended i ndi ctm entr ead: T he dul yor gani zed G r and J uryof H arr i s C ount y , T exas , pr es ent s i n t he D i stri ctC ou rtof H arr i s C ou nty , T exas, that i n H arr i s C ou nty , T exas, [A ppel l ant ] , her eaf

t ers t y l ed the D efe ndant , her et ofor e on oraboutM ar ch 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , d id th e n a n d th e re u n la w f u lly, dur i ng the s am e cr i m i nalSMI TH -- 6

tr ans act i on , i n t e n t i o n a l l ya n d k n o wi n g l yc a u s e th e d e a t h o f KR I S T I NA HA RRI S b ySHO OTI NG KR I STI NA HA RRI S W I TH A DEA DLY W E A P O N , N A M E L Y A F IR E A R M , an d in ten tio n a llya n d k n o w in g ly ca u se th e d ea th o f T A M M IE H A R R IS b yS H O O T IN G T A M M IE H A R R IS W I T H A D E A D L Y W E A P O N , N A ME L Y A F I R E A R M. (E m p h a s is a d d e d to a m e n d m e n t h a n d w ri tte n o n f a c e o f in d ic tm e n t) . A ppel l ant ’ s w r i t t en mot i on ar gued, i n per t i nentpart , thatthe i ndi ctm ental l eged tw o s epar at e murde r s w hi ch s t atut or i l yw oul d nots uppor ta dea t h s ent ence ; and, al t hough the off ens es w er e i m pr oper l yj oi ned, i tw as a val i d i ndi ctm entpr es ent i ng tw o non- capi t al
o f f e n se s. T h e re f

o re , u n d e r A rticle 2 8 .1 0 , the in d ictm e n t co u ld n o t b e a m e n d e d b e c a u se to d o so w o u ld c h a rg e a p p e llan t w ith a d if f e re n t o f f e n se . H e a lso a rg u e d th a t in d ictin g h im f o r c a p ita l m u rd e r w o u ld v io la te h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts to a g ra n d ju ry a n d d u e p ro c e s s . T h e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d a p p e lla n t’ s m o tio n . T he s uffi ci encyof an i ndi ctm enti s a ques t i on of l aw and i s r evi ew ed de novo . S ta te v . Mo

ff , 154 S. W . 3d 599, 601 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng G u zm a n v . S ta te , 955 S. W . 2d 85, 89 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1997) ) . T he r i ghtt o not i ce i s s etfor t h i n bot h t he U ni t ed S ta te s a n d T e x a s C o n s titu tio n s . See U .S . C ONST . am e n d . V I; T EX . C ONST . a rt . I, § 1 0 . I n addi t i on, t he Texas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e pr ovi des gui del i nes r el at i ng t o t he
s u f f ic ie n c yo f

a n in d ic tm e n t. See, e. g. , A r t i cl es 21. 03, 21. 04, and 21. 11. T hus , the i ndi ctm entm us tbe s peci fi c enough t o i nform the def endantof the natur e of the
a c c u s a tio n s a g a in s t h im s o th a t h e m a yp re p a re a d e f e n s e . Mo ff , 1 5 4 S .W .3 d a t 6 0 1 . H ow ever , t he due- pr oces s r equi r ementm aybe s at i s fi ed bym eans ot herthan the l anguageSMI TH -- 7

in th e c h a rg in g in s tru m e n t. Ke lla r v . S ta te , 1 0 8 S .W .3 d 3 1 1 , 3 1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). W h e n a m o tio n to q u a sh is o v e rru led , a d e f e n d a n t su f

f e rs n o h a rm u n les s h e d id n o t, i n f a c t, r e c e iv e n o tic e o f

th e S ta te ’s th e o ry a g a in s t w h ic h h e w o u ld h a v e to d e f e n d . I d. ; s ee al s o A r t . 21. 19 ( “A n i ndi ctm ents hal l notbe hel d i ns uffi ci ent , nors hal l the tr i al , j udgm ent orotherpr ocee di ngs t her eon be a ffe ct ed, byr eas on of anydefe ctof form w hi ch does not p re ju d ic e th e s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts o f th e d e f e n d a n t” ). T exas Penal C ode § 19. 03( a) ( 7) defi nes capi t al m ur deras m ur der i ng m or e than one per s on: ( A ) dur i ng t he s ame cr i m i nal tr ans act i on; or( B ) dur i ng di ffe r entcr i m i nal tr ans act i ons butpur s uantt o t he s ame sc heme orcour s e of c onduct . M ur deri s defi ned as the dea th of “a n i ndi vi dual . ” T EX . P E N A L C OD E §19. 02. T h e o rig in a l in d ictm e n t o n its fac e l i s t s the cha r ge as “C A PI T A L M U R D E R , ” and, i n a s i ngl e par agr aph, al l eges that appel l antknow i ngl ycaus ed the dea t h of m or e than one pe r s on. T he i ndi ctm entnot i fi ed
a p p e llan t o f

th e n a tu re o f

th e c h a rg e a g a in st h im a lth o u g h it w a s d e f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to s t at e w hethert he dea t hs w er e dur i ng the s ame cr i m i nal tr ans act i on, ors ame sc heme or
cour s e of c onduct . A ppel l ant , i n fac t , w or ked form ont hs pr epar i ng hi s defe ns e t o a ca p it al-m u rde r ch arg e. T h ere fo re, th e a m en d m en t w as n o t barred b yA rt icl e 2 8 . 1 0 (c),
w hi ch pr ohi bi t s amendm ent s i f the new i ndi ctm entchar ges the def endantw i t h an
a d d itio n a l o r d if

f e re n t o f f e n s e . F u rt h e r, a p p e lla n t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e re n o t h a rm e d . See A r t s . 21. 19 & 28. 10; Kel lar , 108 S. W . 3d at313. T he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e cl ear l ys how s thatappel l anthad ac tualSMI TH -- 8

not i ce of the ca pi t al char ge upon w hi ch the St at e w as bas i ng i t s al l egat i ons . W e r ej ect
a p p e llan t’s a rg u m e n t th a t th is C o u rt sh o u ld p re su m e th e in d ictm e n t w a s d e f e c tiv e d u e to
m i s j oi nderand i n contr adi ct i on of the l i s t ed fe l onychar ge t i t l e i n t he i ndi ctm entthatw as s i gned byt he gr and j ur y . Poi nt s of err orone, tw o, and thr ee a r e overrul ed. In p o ints of

erro r fo u r th rou g h thirteen , ap p ell an t cl aim s tha t th e tri al co u rt err oneous l ygr ant ed the pr os ecut i on’ s chal l enges forcaus e t o t en veni r emem ber s bas ed on thei rper s onal bel i efs agai ns tcapi t al puni s hm enti n vi ol at i on of W ith e rs p o o n v . Ill in o is , 391 U . S. 510 ( 1968) , and A dam s v. Texas , 448 U . S. 38 ( 1980) . A veni r emem berw ho can
se t as id e h is b e lief

s a g a in st c a p ital p u n ish m e n t an d h o n e stlya n sw e r th e sp e c ial iss u e s is
n o t c h a lle n g e a b le f

o r c a u s e . See W

i thers poon , 3 9 1 U .S . at 5 2 2 -2 3 ; C ol bur n v. S ta te , 966 S .W .2 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). A v e n ire m e m b e r is c h a llen g e a b le f o r c a u se if hi s bel i efs agai ns tcapi t al puni s hm entw oul d pr eventors ubs t ant i al l yi m pai rthe per form ance of hi s dut i es as a j ur ori n acc or dance w i t h t he court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons and the ju ro r’ s o a th . See C olburn , 966 S. W . 2d at517. W e re v iew a trial c o u rt’s r u lin g o n a c h a llen g e f o r c a u se w ith “ c o n sid e ra b le d ef ere n ce ” b ec au se th e tri al co u rtis i n the b est p o sit ion to ev alua te th e v en ir em em b er’s d e m e a n o r a n d re s p o n s e s . S e e W a in w rig h t v. W

itt , 4 6 9 U .S . 4 1 2 , 4 2 9 (1 9 8 5 ); G uz m an , 9 5 5 S . W . 2 d at 89 (ap p ell ate c o u rt s af fo rd “ alm o st t o tal d ef

ere n ce ” to th e tri al co u rt ’s
r es ol ut i on of i s s ues t hattur n on an eva l uat i on of cr edi bi l i t yand demeanor ) . W hen the p o ten tial ju ro r’s a n sw e rs a re v a c ill a tin g , u n c lea r, o r c o n tra d icto ry , p a rticu lar d e f e re n c e isSMI TH -- 9

a c c o rd e d to th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n . C olburn , 966 S. W . 2d at517. W e w i l l r ever s e a tr i al
cour t ’ s rul i ng on a cha l l enge f orcaus e “onl yi f a c l earabus e of di s cr et i on i s evi dent . ” See id . A p p ell an t fi rstco m p lai n s tha t th e tri al co u rterro n eo u slyg ran ted th e S tat e’s ch all en g e to v en ir e m em b er Ju an C o rral. C o rral st ated o n h is w ri tt en juro r qu esti o n n aire thathe had “ m i xed fe el i ngs ” aboutt he dea t h penal t yand hi s ans w er s t o s ever al of the q u esti o n s reg ard ing the d ea th p en altyw ere co n fli cti n g . D u ri n g v o ird ir e, th e tri al co u rt f irst q u e stio n e d C o rra l b e f o re tu rn in g h im o v e r to c o u n se l: [ C O U R T ]: B o tto m lin e is th is: A n yth in g re lig io u slyo r m o ra llyth a t w o u ld

pr eventy ou fr om ans w er i ng thes e ques t i ons i n s uch a w aythaty ou w o u ld k n o w th a t I w o u ld im p o se th e d e a th p e n a ltya s p u n ish m e n t in a ca pi t al m ur dercas e? [ Ju ro r]: R e lig io u sly , I g u e ss , I am a g a in st it. * * * [C O U R T ] : I s t her e s om ethi ng abouty ourr el i gi ous bel i ef thaty ou coul d not

part i ci pat e as a j ur ori n a ca s e l i ke thi s know i ng the w ayy ou ans w er ed thos e ques t i ons coul d r equi r e me t o i m pos e dea t h upon [a p p ell an t] ? [Juror] : Y eah, I gu ess, y es. T he St at e then moved t o chal l enge, and def ens e couns el obj ect ed. T he tr i al cour tdeni ed the cha l l enge. T he St at e then bega n i t s voi rdi r e: [St at e] : I gues s t he J udge ki nd of gave m e myl ead- off que s t i on, ar e y ou

oppos ed t o t he dea t h penal t y ? W hatar e y ourthought s ? W hatdo y o u th in k a b o u t it ?SMI TH -- 10

[ Ju ro r]: I’m f

o r it an d a g a in st it. [St at e] : W hen y ou s ayy ou’ r e fori t , ther e ar e ce r t ai n fac tpatt erns i n y our

m i nd t haty ou coul d t hi nk of thatm ake y ou s ay , o. k. , y es , thatper s on s h o u l d r e c e i v e th e d e a t h p e n a l t y? [Juror] : Y es. * * * [St at e] : H er e’ s ki nd of an i nt er es t i ng tw i s t , y ou’ r e a pot ent i al j ur or . Y ou have

t o l i s t en t o all the evi dence and fi nd t he per s on gui l t yory ou can f i nd h im n o t gu il ty . If y o u f in d them n o t gu il ty , theyw alk o u t th e d o o r. Y o u f in d th e m g u ilty , w e g o in to th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se o f trial. In th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se , y o u a re g o in g to h e a r m o re e v id e n c e , p o ss ib ly fr om t he St at e, pos s i bl yfr om the D efe ns e; and then at t he conc l us i on of thatevi dence , y ou gett o cons i dereveryt hi n g y ou hear d i n the gui l t/ i nnocenc e phas e i ncl udi ng anyaddi t i onal evi dence thatm aybe br oughtt o y ou i n t he puni s hm entphas e, and then y ou have t o ans w er I s s ue N o. 1. I f y ou ans w erI s s ue N o. 1, y es , y ou go on t o I s s ue N o. 2. A n d if y o u a n sw e r Is su e N o . 2 n o , b yla w th e Ju d g e is re q u ire d to i m pos e a death s ent ence . I t ’ s not t hat t he j udge can s ay , w el l, I’ve c h a n g e d m ym in d ; I th in k I’m g o in g to g iv e h im life . S h e ’s r e q u ire d in t he w ayy ou ans w erthos e ques t i ons t o s ent en ce thatm an s i t t i ng r i ght th e re in th e o ra n g e sh irt to d e a th b y leth a l in jec tio n . It’s a p re ttyb ig re sp o n sib ili ty . C a n y o u d o th a t? C a n y o u p a rticip a te in th is tria l? [J ur or ] : I don’ tt hi nk s o. T hat ’ s pr et t ys t r ong. [ S tate ]: O h , itis s tro n g a n d th a t’s w h yw e w a n te d to c h a t w ith y o u a little b it

and bec aus e thi s i s s o s er i ous , w e nee d defi ni t e ans w er s . I ’ m nott r y i ng t o b e u g l y t o yo u , b u ti t ’ s ye s I c a n o rn o I c a n ’ t , n o tm a yb e o rp o s s i b l y. C an y ou part i ci pate i n thi s? [J ur or ] : N o. [St at e] : Y ou w oul d have – y ou m ent i oned a r el i gi ous obj ect i on ora mora l

obj ecti on, t o part i ci pat i ng i n the capi t al m ur dertr i al w her e a pe r s on c o u ld b e se n ten c e d to d e a th ; is th a t co rre c t?SMI TH -- 11

[Juror] : U h-huh , y es. [St at e] : So, w hatI am under s t andi ng y ou t o s ay i s t haty ou have a cons ci ent i ous

scru p l es [s i c] i n r egar ds t o t he i nfl i ct i on of puni s hm ent of death for a c rim e in a c a p ital c a se w h e re th e S tate is s e e k in g th e d e a th p e n a lty ; is th a t co rre c t? [Juror] : Y es. T he tr i al court t hen gr ant ed t he St at e’ s chal l enge f orcaus e. D efe ns e couns el obj ect ed t o the tr ial co u rt ’s ruli n g ; ho w ev er, de fe n se c o u n sel d id n o t at tem p t t o reh ab il it ate the juro r. H er e, t he voi rdi r e re cor d s uppor t s t he t r i al cour t ’ s rul i ng. A l t hough C orr al appea r ed to v a c ill a te r e g a rd in g th e d e a th p e n a ltyo n h is q u e stio n n a ire , h e c lea rly sta ted th a t h e c o u ld
n o t p a rticip a te in a n sw e rin g th e sp e c ial iss u e s in su c h a m a n n e r th a t a d e a th se n ten c e w o u ld be i m pos ed. A ccor di ng appr opr i at e defe r ence t o the tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on, w e hol d thatthe
co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in su stai n ing the S tat e’s c h all en g e f o r ca u se. A p p ell an t’ s four th poi ntof err ori s overrul ed. I n hi s fi fth poi nt of err or , appel l antcompl ai ns aboutt he cha l l enge of veni r e mem ber Jam es P ett itt, Jr. , fo r ca u se. P ett itt w as a 65 -y ea r-old re ti ree an d v eteran o f th e V ietn am W ar. I n hi s w r i t t en quest i onnai r e and dur i ng ques t i oni ng by t he S t at e, Pet t i t ts t at ed thathe bel i eved i n the de ath pena l t yas a val i d puni s hm entforcapi t al m ur der . H ow ever , as ques t i oni ng con t i nu ed, P et t i t tbeg an to equ i vo cat e i n h i s answ ers : [S tat e]: A n d I w an t t o ask y o u w h e th er y o u p erso n all yca n sito n this j u ry

know i ng t hati f y ou fi nd hi m gui l t y and I pr ove t o y ou bey ond a r eas onab le d oubthe comm i t t ed the cr i m e, and i f y ou have e vi dence su c h th a t co n v in c e s y o u b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e a n sw e r to Iss u e N o . 1 is y e s, a n d y o u b e liev e th a t th e a n sw e r t o Iss u e N o . 2 sh o u ldSMI TH -- 12 be no, t hen he’ s s ent ence d t o di e byl ethal i nj ect i on. C an y ou part i ci pate i n thi s process? [ Ju ro r]: It’s v e ryd if f icu lt. * * * [St at e] : I gott o know now beca us e I ’ ve gott o deci de w hethert o puty ou on

t hi s j ur y . [D efe ns e couns el ] has t o deci de w hetherornott o puty ou on t hi s j ur y . A nd I ’ ve gott o know , i f I pr ove mycas e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt o y ou and I pr ove I s s ue N o. 1 t o y ou, and y ou bel i eve thatt he ans w ert o I s s ue N o. 2 i s no, the l aw s ay s I ’ m ent i t l ed f o r yo u to a n s w e r t h e q u e s tio n s th a t w a yif th e e v id e n c e is th e re . I w an t t o m ak e su re tha t y o u ’re g o ing to an sw er itthat w ayo r i f y o u ’re g o ing to sa y , y o u k n o w w h at, I ca n ’td o it . T h is i s w h yw e’re h ere now t o fi nd outabouty ou. [Juror] : I underst and t hat. It ’s verydiffi cultfor m e t o co m e ou tand sayt his ,

I me a n , y o u k n o w. [St at e] : I ’ m gi vi ng y ou the outt o s ayw hat every ou w antt o s ay , w hi cheve r

w ayi ti s. [ Ju ro r]: L ik e I sa id b e f o re , it ’s r e a llya to u g h d e c isio n f o r m e a t th is p o in t. [ S tate ]: A n d I g o t to a sk y o u n o w , ca n y o u b e o n th e ju ryo r n o t? [J ur or ] : I don’ tt hi nk s o. [St at e] : A nd i s t hatbeca us e s om ethi ng abouty ou, w hethery ou have s crupl es

orw hat everabouty ou per s onal l ybei ng on a j uryw her e the i m p o s i t i o n o f

d e a t h i s a p o s s i b i l i t y? * * * [Juror] : Y es. [S tat e]: Is th at y o u r an sw er? D o y o u h av e sc rup les ab o u t bein g o n this j u ry

o r so m e th in g a b o u t y o u b e in g o n th is ju ryo r a g a in st th e d e a th p e n a ltyf o r y o u p e rso n a llya s a ju ro r, if I a sk e d th a t rig h t?SMI TH -- 13

[J ur or ] : W el l , I don’ thave a nyt hi ng, I gues s I don’ thave – I s ay“gues s , ” I

d o n ’ th a v e a p r o b l e m, I g u e s s , wi t h th e d e a t h p e n a l t y , b u tmy p erso n al fe eli n g s ri g h t no w , I’m just – it ’s kin d o f q u esti o n ab le. I’m s o r r y. [St at e] : D oes t hatm ean thaty ou can’ tguar ant ee me t haty ourver di ctw i l l be

bas ed s ol el yon the evi dence thaty ou heari n t he court r oom , that t her e i s a pos s i bi l i t ythaty ourper s onal fee l i ngs orm or al s or w h a tev e r it is, m a yc a u se y o u to a n sw e r th e q u e stio n s d if f e re n tly t h a n t h e e v i d e n c e , k n o wi n g th a tth e d e a t h p e n a l t yc o u l d b e a s s e s s e d ? I’ m readi ng y ou r answ er as y es. [Juror] : Y es. [St at e] : J udge, w e have a cha l l enge. [C O U R T ] : I need t o heari toutof y ourm outh. I thi nk w hathe’ s gett i ng at , and I

k n o w h e ’s tryi n g to a sk it i n d if f e re n t w a y s, b u t th e b o tto m lin e is t h i s : Wo u l d y o u v i o l a t e y o u ro wn c o n s c i e n c e , I me a n y o u ro wn m or al cons ci ence i f y ou s aton t hi s cas e know i ng thatul t i m at el yy our d e c i s i o n o n h o w y o u a n s we rth e s e q u e s t i o n s wo u l d r e s u l ti n me s ent enci ng t hi s m an t o death? [Juror] : I think i tw ou l d b otherm e, y es. [ C O U R T ]: O k a y . Y o u sa id “ I th in k ,” w o u ld it? [Juror] : Y es. * * *

I gues s i t ’ s beca us e I ’ ve bee n t hr ough t hi s V i etnam t hi ng and w h a te v e r e ls e . D efe ns e couns el t hen bega n hi s voi rdi r e of Pett i t t , expl ai ni ng thatthe def ens e w as l oo king fo r a cr oss- sect i on of the com m un i t yw i t h d i fferi ng view s. C ou nsel al so expl ai ned thatPet t i t tw oul d be hea r i ng evi dence fr om both s i des . C ouns el then i nqui r ed: [D efe ns e] : B utal l y ou ar e ca l l ed upon t o do i s t o ans w erthos e i s s ues bas edSMI TH -- 14 upon t he evi dence . A r e y ou t el l i ng the J udge and a l l of us thaty ou can’ tans w ert hos e i s s ues hones t l ybas ed on the evi dence ? [Ju ror]: I ca n an sw er tho se q u esti o n s h o n estl y , b u t i n m yo w n m ind , I do n ’t

w an t t o take so m eb o d y ’s l ife. O k ay . Y o u u n d erstan d w h at I’m sa y in g ? Y e s, I u n d e rsta n d w h a t th e y ’re sa y in g , ca n I g o a lo n g w ith t h a tt o t h e p o i n t , y o u k n o w, e v e r yt h i n g , wh a th e h a s t a l k e d t o me a b o u t. I j u st in m yo w n p e rso n a l f e e lin g s, I ju st d o n ’t th in k I n e e d to b e h e re . [D efe ns e] : Y ou j us tdon’ tw antt o i s thatw haty ou’ r e s ay i ng? [J ur or ] : I j us tdon’ tw antt o be i nvol ved i n t hi s orm or al l y– [D efen se] : B ut y ou cou l d an sw er tho se i ssues? [Ju ror]: S ir ? [D efe ns e] : Y ou coul d hones t l yans w erthos e i s s ues bas ed upon the evi dence ? [Juror] : I’ m sure I cou l d, y es. [ D e f e n se ]: P a rticip a te in a v e rd ict, y o u ju st d o n ’t w a n t to d o it; is th a t co rre c t? [J ur or ] : I j us tdon’ tw antt o be – [D efen se] : P artof the process? [ J u r o r ] : N o , I d o n ’ tw a n tt o b e p a r to f th i s typ e o f

tr i a l . S o r r y. A s can be s een f

r om t he r ecor d, Pet t i t tcont i nuous l yqual i fi ed hi s ans w er s even w h e n h e w a s a sk e d to g iv e a f irm re sp o n se . H e sta ted th a t h e b e liev e d in th e d e a th p e n a ltya n d c o u ld f

o llo w th e law , b u t re p e a ted lysta ted th a t h e d id n o t w a n t to p a rticip a te in th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se o f th e trial. H e w e n t so f

a r a t o n e p o in t as to sa yth a t h e w o u ld notfol l ow t he evi dence i f thatm eanthe coul d ens ur e a l i fe s ent ence . I n s um , he w as anSMI TH -- 15

“equi vocat i ng” j ur orand, t her efor e, w e def ert o t he tr i al j udge w ho w as abl e t o obs erve P ett itt’ s d em ea n o r an d asse ss h is cap ac ityto se rve . T h e tri al j u d g e w h o h ea rs th e a n sw ers of an e qui vocat i ng veni r e per s on has the oppor tuni t yt o obs erve the t one and de m eanorof the pr os pect i ve j ur ori n det erm i ni ng the pr eci s e meani ng i nt ended, w hi l e w e have onl yt he
c o ld re c o rd . S e e B ridd le v . S ta te , 7 4 2 S .W .2 d 3 7 9 , 3 8 4 n . 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). T h e re f o re , as th e trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n f a lls w ith in th e z o n e o f

re a so n a b le d isa g re e m e n t,
w e s hal l defe rt o i t s rul i ng. A ppel l ant ’ s fi fth poi ntof err ori s overrul ed. A p p e llan t n e x t co m p lain s a b o u t th e S tate ’s c h a llen g e to p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r B e v e rly C al houn. Pr i ort o al l ow i ng t he St at e ordefe ns e t o ques t i on her , the tr i al cour tas ked C a lh o u n if

s h e h a d a n ym o ra l, r e lig io u s , o r c o n s c ie n tio u s o b je c tio n s to th e d e a th p e n a lty. C a lh o u n sa id th a t h e r re lig io u s b e lief s w o u ld p re v e n t h e r f

ro m se n ten c in g so m e o n e to d e a th . S h e f

u rth e r sta ted th a t sh e c o u ld n o t p a rticip a te a s a ju ro r a n d “ w o u ld n o t b e a b le t o gi ve a de ath s ent ence t o anybodyor , s ay , go t hatr out e. ” C al houn nevers t at ed thats he
cou l d fo l l ow t he law and answ er the spec i al i ssues accordi ng t o the evi den ce. D efen se couns el obj ect ed t o t he cha l l enge, butdecl i ned t o ques t i on the j ur or . I ti s cl earfr om t he
re c o rd th a t C a lh o u n ’s b e lief s a g a in st c a p ital p u n ish m e n t w o u ld p re v e n t o r su b sta n tially i m pai rt he per form ance of herdut i es as a j ur ori n acc or dance w i t h t he court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons a n d th e ju ro r’ s o a th . See C olburn , 9 6 6 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 7 . T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng t he St at e’ s chal l enge f orcaus e. Poi ntof err ors i x i s overrul ed. I n poi ntof err ors even, appel l antar gues thatveni r e per s on J uani t a Pr i et o w asSMI TH -- 16

i m pr oper l yexcus ed forcaus e. I n herw r i t t en j ur orques t i onnai r e, Pr i et o s t at ed thats he di d notfee l t hats he coul d j udge a de ath- penal tycas e and thats he s houl d nothave the d e a th p e n a lty“ o n h e r h a n d s.” F o llo w in g g e n e ra l v o ir d ire b yth e trial c o u rt, P rie to req u ested to sp ea k w ith the ju d g e. P ri eto to ld the tr ial co u rt : “I do n ’tthink I’m comfort abl e maki ng t he dec i s i on orans w er i ng [i n a w ay ] thatw i l l bas i cal l yhave y ou s ent ence hi m t o death. ” She furt hers t at ed thats he coul d nots l eep a tni ghtknow i ng her
a n s w e rs to th e is s u e s c a u s e d a d e a th s e n te n c e to b e im p o s e d ; th is v io la te d h e r c o n s c ie n c e . T h e S tat e c h all en g ed h er a t th at t im e, bu t bec au se d ef en se c o u n sel o b

jected , the tri al co u rt had herbr oughtback f

ori ndi vi dual voi rdi r e. A ti ndi vi dual voi rdi r e, t he tr i al cour ti nqui r ed furt heri nt o Pr i et o’ s fee l i ngs r egar di ng t he dea t h penal t y . T he courtexpl ai ned t o herthati tdi d notm att erw hethert he pr oces s m ade he rfee l uncomfort abl e; w hatthe courtneede d t o know w as w hethers he h a d a n ym o ra l, relig io u s, o r c o n sc ien tio u s o b jec tio n s to th e im p o sitio n o f th e d e a th p en altyin an ap p rop ri ate c ap it al-m u rde r ca se. P ri eto a n sw ere d , “Y es.” T h e tri al co u rt g ra n ted th e S tate ’s c h a llen g e f o r c a u se o v e r a p p e llan t’s o b jec tio n . D e f

e n se c o u n se l d id notat t empt t o el i ci tanyfur t herr es pons es fr om Pr i et o. It is c lea r f

ro m th e re c o rd th a t P rie to ’s b e lief s a g a in st c a p ital p u n ish m e n t w o u ld p re v e n t o r s u b s ta n tia lly im p a irth e p e rf o rm a n c e o f

h e r d u tie s a s a ju ro r. See C olburn , 966 S . W . 2 d at 51 7 . T h e tri al co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in g ran ti n g the S tat e’s chal l enge f

orcaus e. Poi ntof err ors even i s overrul ed.SMI TH -- 17

In h is e ig h th p o in t o f

e rro r, ap p e llan t co n ten d s th a t th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in g ra n tin g th e S tate ’s c h a llen g e f o r c a u se to v e n ire m e m b e r C ra ig Fr oncki ew i cz. T he r ecor d s how s t hatFr oncki ew i cz c ons i s t ent l ys t at ed thathe w oul d s eek anyand eve r ym i t i gat i ng fac t ort hathe coul d pot ent i al l yfi nd i n or dert o ens ur e a l i fe
s ent ence . H e s t at ed thathe w oul d hol d t he St at e t o a bur den hi gherthan the l aw r equi r ed, and thathe had e s s ent i al l ypr e- j udged the i ns t antcas e bec aus e he w oul d al w ay s fi nd appel l ant ’ s y oung age t o be a s uffi ci entm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance underthe s econd s peci al iss u e . F o llo w in g n u m e ro u s q u e stio n s b yth e S tate , the trial c o u rt ste p p e d in to c o n f irm h is
an sw er: [C O U R T ] : T hat ’ s w hyt he ques t i on i s bei ng as ked. W e w antt o m ake s ur e that

y ou can t ake a n oath t o fol l ow the l aw , appl ythe fa ct s t o t he e v id e n c e w h e re v e r it lea d s y o u . B e c a u se f o r y o u to sit o n th e ju ry , to po t enti al l yhav e an ag end a such thaty ou w ou l d an sw er these ques t i ons i n s uch a w ayas t o m ake s ur e the D efe ndantonl yget s l i fe, it w o u ld n ’t b e ri g h t. Y o u w o u ld b e lyin g to th e C o u rt , e t c e te ra . Y o u se e w h a t I’m sa y in g ? A ll w e ’re try in g to d o is ju st e sta b lish , if y ou’ r e s el ect ed t o s i tas a j ur or , y ou coul d fol l ow the ques t i ons w her evert heyl ead y ou. W h en y o u g et t o S p ec ial Issu e N o . 2 , I do n ’tk n o w w h at y o u ’re goi ng t o hear . Y ou m ayhears om ethi ng m i t i gat i ng. Y ou m aynot h e a rs o me t h i n g mi t i g a t i n g . I t ’ s u p t o e a c h i n d i v i d u a l j u r o r , a n d we gave e xampl es of w hatm i ghtbe mi t i gat i ng, w hatm i ghtnotbe m it igating to an o ther juro r. T h e b o tt o m li n e is, h av e y o u h ea rd anyt hi ng; and i f y ou have, i s i ts uffi ci entfory ou t o gi ve l i fe i ns t ead o f d ea th. B u t t o au tom ati ca ll yg ive it j u st be ca u se y o u h ea rd so m ethin g m it igating w o u ldn ’tb e righ t. D o y o u see w h at I’m s ay i ng? Ital l has t o be w ei ghed outand, I gues s , that ’ s w her e y ou al w ay s orw oul d y ou – ar e y ou t el l i ng us thati f y ou hear d s om ethi ng m i t i gat i ng, per i od, y ou w oul d al w ay s s aythatw as s uffi ci ents uch t hat y ou w ou l d an sw er that quest i on , y es.SMI TH -- 18

[Juror] : I w ou l d sayt hat’ s a fai r w ayof say i ng i t . I think t o b e – alm ost

anyt hi ng t hatw oul d al l ow m e t o s ayy es t o t he s econd que s t i on. T he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s chal l enge f or c a u s e . T h is C o u rt h a s u p h e ld c h a lle n g e s f o r c a u s e in s im ila r s itu a tio n s . See C olburn , 966 S . W . 2 d a t5 1 8 (

j u r o rc o u l d h o n e s t l y a n s w e rq u e s t i o n b u ti n h i s m i n d th e r e w o u l d a l w a ys b e su f f icie n t m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s f o r a life se n ten c e ); Sm ith v . S ta te , 907 S. W . 2d 522, 529 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1995) ( j ur orbel i eved that“ther e ar e al w ay s m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s i n t he natur e of l i fe” and s o w oul d al w ay s fi nd s uffi ci entm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s ) . Poi ntof err orei ghti s overrul ed. I n poi ntof err orni ne, appel l antcompl ai ns r egar di ng the St at e’ s chal l enge f or c a u se to p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r H u b e rtu s T h o m e e r. D u rin g in iti a l v o ir d ire b yth e trial c o u rt, T hom eerm ade i tpl ai n t hat , due t o hi s r el i gi on, he w oul d be unabl e t o ans w erthe s peci al i s s ues i n s uch a w ayt hatt he dea t h penal t yw oul d be i m pos ed. I n or dert o obt ai n a fi nal cl ar i fi cat i on of hi s r es pons e, t he tr i al cour tas ked the fol l ow i ng: [C O U R T ]: B ecause o f y ou r r el i gious and m oral beli efs, w ou l d y ou answ er these

ques t i ons i n s uch a w aythat[appe l l ant ] gotl i fe i ns t ead of death? [Juror] : Y es. T he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s chal l enge f or c a u s e . See C olburn , 9 6 6 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 8 ; Sm ith , 9 0 7 S .W .2 d a t 5 2 9 . P o in t o f e rro r n in e is
overrul ed. I n hi s t enth poi ntof err or , appel l antcompl ai ns r egar di ng veni r e mem berD onnaSMI TH -- 19

F ra c . In h e r ju ro r q u e stio n n a ire , F ra c sta ted , “I d o n ’t f e e l th a t I c a n b e tru lyh o n e st w ith
m yfee l i ng r egar di ng capi t al m ur der . ” D ur i ng i ndi vi dual voi rdi r e bythe St at e, s he cl ar i fi ed hers t at ementbyagr eei ng thati tw oul d vi ol at e hercons ci ence , m or al s , or r el i gi on t o part i ci pat e i n t he dea t h- penal t ypr oces s . T he tr i al cour tcont i nued t o ques t i on Fr ac. Fr ac s t at ed thatt he dea t h penal t yvi ol at ed hercons ci ence i n t hats he di d not“fe el comfort abl e i n m aki ng t he dec i s i on i n a dea t h deci s i on of s om eone, ” and thats he di d not thi nk thats he coul d “ul t i m at el ym ake thatdeci s i on. ” The t r i al cour ts oughtfur t her cl ar i fi cat i on and fi nal l yas ked: [C O U R T ] : H ypot het i cal l y , i f y ou w er e t o s i ton t hi s j ury , do y ou thi nk thaty ou

w oul d be i ncl i ned t o ans w erthes e ques t i ons i n s uch a w aythatthe D efe ndantgotl i fe i ns t ead of death? [Juror] : Y es, y es. T he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s chal l enge f or c a u s e . See C la rk

v . S ta te , 929 S. W . 2d 5, 8- 9 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1996) ( a pr os pect i ve j ur or w ho m ai nt ai ns s he w i l l cons ci ous l ydi s t or therans w er s m us tbe exc us ed on cha l l enge f or c a u se ); see al

so C olburn , 9 6 6 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 8 ; Sm ith , 907 S. W . 2d at529. Poi ntof err or t en i s overrul ed. I n poi ntof err orel even, appel l antcompl ai ns r egar di ng the tr i al cour t ’ s gr ant i ng of th e S tate ’s c h a llen g e to T im o th yT o w se n . D u rin g v o ir d ire , T o w se n sta ted th a t itw o u ld
v io la te h is c o n s c ie n c e to s it o n th e ju ry in a d e a th -p e n a lty c a s e a n d th a t h e c o u ld n o t d o it. T ow s en r epea t edl yt ol d t he tr i al cour tthathe “w oul dn’ tfee l comfort abl e” s i t t i ng on aSMI TH -- 20

capi t al j ury . T he tr i al courtexpl ai ned thathi s comfortw as i r r el evant , butw hatw as r el evantw as w hetheri tw oul d vi ol at e hi s cons ci ence i n s uch a w aythathe coul d not h o n e s tly a n s w e r t h e s p e c ia l is s u e s k n o w in g a p p e lla n t c o u ld re c e iv e th e d e a th p e n a lty. T ow s en r es ponded, “I can’ t . ” The St at e cha l l enged Tow s en forcaus e. D efe ns e couns el di d notconductanyvoi rdi r e, butobj ect ed t o t he cha l l enge. T he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s chal l enge. T he St at e maybarfr om j ur ys ervi ce thos e w hos e bel i efs aboutcapi t al puni s hm entw oul d l ead th e m to ig n o re th e la w o r v io la te th e iro a th s . A da ms , 4 4 8 U .S . at 5 0 ; s ee al s o Locket tv. O h io , 438 U . S. 586, 595- 96 ( 1978) ( no W i thers poon v iolati o n if p rosp ec ti v e juro r’s convi ct i on s o s t r ong he coul d nott ake oa t h, know i ng death penal t ypos s i bl e) . Poi ntof
err orel even i s overrul ed. In p o int of

erro r tw elve , ap p ell an t ave rs th e tri al co u rterred in g ran ti n g the S tat e’s chal l enge t o pr os pect i ve j ur orM att hew St r i nger . St r i ngers t at ed i n hi s w r i t t en j ur or ques t i onnai r e that , “I f thi s i s a murde rtr i al , I coul dn’ t[be a j ur or ] [be] caus e the t al k of d ea th in a n yw aym ak e[ s] m e u n co m fo rt ab le. ” D u ri n g ind ividu al vo ird ir e, th e tri al co u rt at t empt ed t o gets om e cl ar i fi cat i on of thi s s t at ement , and St r i ngerans w er ed that“anythi ng about[dea t h] ” bother ed hi m . A gai n t he tr i al cour tat t empt ed t o el i ci ta def i ni t i ve ans w er fr om St r i nger , and St r i ngerfi nal l ys t at ed thathe w as m or al l yand cons ci ent i ous l yoppos ed t o the dea th penal t yeven i n an appr opr i at e capi t al
- m ur dercas e. D efe ns e couns el decl i ned t o ques t i on St r i nger , butobj ect ed t o t he St at e’ s chal l enge f orcaus e. A s i ti s cl earSMI TH -- 21

S trin g e r’s p e rso n a l f

e e lin g s a g a in st c a p ital p u n ish m e n t w o u ld p re v e n t o r su b sta n tially i m pai rt he per form ance of hi s dut i es as a j ur or , the tr i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on in g ra n tin g th e S ta te ’s c h a lle n g e f o r c a u s e . See C olburn , 966 S. W . 2d at517. Poi ntof
err ort w el ve i s overrul ed. I n poi ntof err ort hi r t een, appel l antar gues thatthe tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng t he St at e’ s chal l enge t o veni r e mem berPatr i ci a C ruz. I n herw r i t t en j ur or ques t i onnai r e, C ruz s t at ed, “W e do nothave the r i ghtt o t erm i nat e G od’ s l i fe e xpect ancy o f th a t p e rs o n ,” a n d th a t s h e w a s o p p o s e d to c a p ita l p u n is h m e n t u n d e r a n yc ir c u m s ta n c e s . U pon ent er i ng t he court r oom fori ndi vi dual voi rdi r e, s he i m m edi at el ys t at ed, “I pl ead the Fi fth A m endment . ” I n r es pons e t o ques t i oni ng bythe tr i al cour t , C ruz i ndi cat ed thats he
w as agai ns tt he dea t h penal t yforboth r el i gi ous and cons ci ent i ous r eas ons , and thats he had obj ect i ons t o t he i m pos i t i on of the dea t h penal t yi n an appr opr i at e capi t al
- m ur der
ca se. N eith er the S tat e n o r th e d ef en se q u esti o n ed h er. T he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s chal l enge f or c a u s e o v e r a p p e lla n t’ s o b je c tio n . S e e K in gv . S ta te , 2 9 S . W . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 7 - 6 8 ( Te x . Cr i m. A pp . 20 00 ) ( no err or i n sust ai ning cha l l eng e t o p rospect i ve jur or w ho cou l d n ot i m po se the dea th penal t y ) . Poi ntof err ort hi r t een i s overrul ed. I n poi nt s of err orfour t een a nd fi ft een, appel l antcompl ai ns thatthe tr i al cour terr ed
w h e n it d e n ie d h is re q u e s t f o r a ju ry c h a rg e o n th e le s s e r- in c lu d e d o f f e n s e o f m u rd e r. Speci fi cal l y , he ar gues t hatt he evi dence coul d have a l l ow ed the j uryt o concl ude thatt heSMI TH -- 22

two d e a th s d i d n o to c c u ri n t h e “ s a me tr a n s a c t i o n . ” He p o s i t s th a tth e e v i d e n c e s h o ws th a t W h ite’s m u rd e r w a s h is o b jec tiv e a n d th a t th e d e a th o f th e c h ild w a s a c o m p lete ly
s epar at e tr ans act i on. A ppel l antcont ends thatthe j urycoul d have be l i eved thathe ki l l ed K r i s t i na onl ybeca us e s he thr eat ened hi m w i t h a kni fe; thus the tw o m ur der s w er e nott he pr oductof the s ame t r ans act i on. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherappel l anti s ent i t l ed t o a cha r ge on a l es s er - i ncl uded offe ns e, w e mustcons i deral l of the evi dence i ntr oduced a ttr i al , w hetherpr oduced byt he S ta te o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t. G o o dw in v . S ta te , 7 9 9 S .W .2 d 7 1 9 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). T h is C o u rt u s e s a tw o -p ro n g e d te s t in its re v ie w . R o u ss e a u v . S ta te , 855 S. W . 2d 666, 6 7 2 -7 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); G o o dw in , 7 9 9 S . W . 2 d at 74 0 -41 . F ir st, the lesse ri ncluded off

ense m ustbe incl ud ed w i t hin the p roof n ecessaryt o est abli sh t he o ffen se c h a rg e d . Id
. S e c o n d , the re m u st b e so m e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t w o u ld p e rm it a
r at i onal j ur yt o fi nd t hati f the def endanti s gui l t y , he i s gui l t yonl yof the l es s er - i ncl uded
o f f e n s e . Id
. T he cr edi bi l i t yof the evi dence and w hetheri tconfl i ct s w i t h otherevi dence
ori s contr over t ed maynotbe cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng w hetheran i ns t ruct i on on a le s s e r- in c lu d e d o f

f e n s e s h o u ld b e g iv e n . B a n da v . S ta te , 8 9 0 S . W . 2 d 4 2 , 6 0 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). T h is C o u rt h a s lo n g h e ld th a t m u rd e r i s a le s s e r- in c lu d e d o f f e n s e o f c a p ita l m u rd e r. S e e Fe ldm a n v . S ta te , 7 1 S .W .3 d 7 3 8 , 7 5 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); T h o m a s v . S ta te , 701 S. W . 2d 653, 656 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1985) . T her efor e, appel l anthas m etthe fi r s tpr ong ofSMI TH -- 23

the t es t . H ow ever , appel l antfai l s t o m eetthe s econd pr ong. T he evi dence s how s that al m os ti m m edi at el yaft ers hoot i ng herm other , appel l antexi t ed the apa r t m entand del i ber at el ys oughtoutK r i s t i na, w ho w as bal l ed up i n a def ens i ve pos i t i on behi nd a ca r w i th no w eapon i n herhand. W i t h t he s ame gun, he s hotK r i s t i na tw i ce a tpoi ntbl ank
r ange a nd t hen s t at ed he w as goi ng aft erK r i s t i na’ s ol ders i s t er . T her e i s no evi dence t hat K r i s t i na eve rt hr eat ened a ppel l antw i t h t he kni fe orthathe w as everaw ar e thats he had the kni fe i n herpos s es s i on. Fur t herm or e, i ti s i r r el evantw hetherK r i s t i na thr eat ened appel l antw i t h t he kni fe. E ven i f appe l l anthad or i gi nal l yi nt ended onl yt o ki l l W hi t e, ther e i s no evi dence t hathe di d notki l l K r i s t i na dur i ng “a c ont i nuous and uni nt errupt ed chai n of conduc toccurr i ng overa verys hor tper i od of t i m e . . . i n a r api d s equenc e of unbr oken eve nt s . ” See Feldm an , 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 2 ; se e a lso Ma ss e y v . S ta te , 933 S. W . 2d 1 4 1 , 1 5 5 -5 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). G i ven thes e fa ct s , w e conc l ude thatther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d fr om w hi ch a
r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d det erm i ne thatappel l antw as gui l t yonl yof m ur der . T he tr i al jud g e d id n o t err i n ref

u sing the in stru cti o n . P o ints of erro r fo u rt ee n an d fiftee n are overrul ed. I n poi nt s of err ors i xt een a nd s event een, appel l antar gues thatthe tr i al cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o defi ne the t erm “s ame cr i m i nal tr ans act i on” i n t he j urychar ge. H e cont ends thatthe t erm i s vague a nd m aybe i ncons i s t ent l yappl i ed. A ppel l antfur therar gues thathe
s p e c i f i c a l l ywa s h a r me d b e c a u s e wh e t h e rth e d e a t h s we r e c a u s e d “ d u r i n g th e s a meSMI TH -- 24

cr i m i nal tr ans act i on” w as ati s s ue i n hi s cas e. T he Texas L egi s l atur e di d notdefi ne the t erm “s ame cr i m i nal tr ans act i on. ” See Feldm an , 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 2 . W o rd s w h ich a re n o t sta tu to rilyd e f in e d a re to b e g iv e n th e ir
u s u a l m e a n in g s , a n d n o s p e c if ic in s tru c tio n s a re re q u ir e d . M a rtin ez v . S ta te , 924 S. W . 2d 6 9 3 , 6 9 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); G a rc ia v . S ta te , 887 S. W . 2d 846, 859 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1994) . B eca us e j ur or s ar e pr es um ed t o att ach a comm on under s t andi ng t o t he meani ng of thi s t erm , ther e w as no err ori n r ej ect i ng appel l ant ’ s r eques tfora def i ni t i on. Fur t her , as ther e w as no evi dence i n t he r ecor d fr om w hi ch a r at i onal j urycoul d fi nd appel l antw as g u il tyo n lyo f m u rde r ( s ee p o in ts o f e rr o r f o u rt e e n a n d f

if te e n , supra ) , anyerr orr es ul t i ng fr om t he fa i l ur e t o defi ne “s ame cr i m i nal tr ans act i on” w oul d nothave c ontr i but ed bey ond
a re a s o n a b le d o u b t to a p p e lla n t’ s c o n v ic tio n o r p u n is h m e n t. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .2 . P o in ts o f e rr o r s ix te e n a n d s e v e n te e n a re o v e rr u le d . In p o ints of

erro r eigh teen an d n inetee n , ap p ell an t con tend s tha t th e tri al co u rt e rre d in a d m itt in g S tate ’s E x h ib its 7 3 a n d 7 4 o v e r h is o b jec tio n th a t th e yv io late d h is S i x th A m e n d m e n tr i g h tt o c o n f r o n ta n d c r o s s - e x a m i n e th e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s th i m . We ag ree that the a d m issi o n o f c ertain p o rt ion s o f S tat e’s E x h ibit7 3 v iolated a p p ell an t’ s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s ; how ever , appel l antw as notharm ed bythei radmi s s i on. S tat e’s E x h ibit s 7 3 an d 7 4 are p en it en ti aryp ac k ets co n tai n ing “T D C J-ID di s ci pl i naryr epor tand hea r i ng r ecor ds ” r egar di ng appel l ant ’ s conductw i t hi n t he pr i s on p o p u latio n d u rin g so m e p re v io u s in c a rc e ra tio n s. T h e trial c o u rt a d m itt e d th e se re p o rtsSMI TH -- 25

u n d e r t h e b u s in e s s re c o rd s e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rs a yru le . See T EX . R. E V ID . 803( 6) . T he
r ecor ds cont ai ned off

ens e des cr i pt i ons , and mostof the document s des i gnat ed thatthe evi dence came fr om t he “of fi cer ’ s r epor t ” al t hough the off i cer s ’ r epor t s w er e noti ncl uded i n the admi t t ed document s . T he r ecor d fur t herr efl ect s thatoffe ns e des cr i pt i ons fr om t he di s ci pl i naryr epor t s w er e r ead a l oud t o t he j uryatthe puni s hm entphas e. I n R u ss e a u v . S ta te , 1 7 1 S .W .3 d 8 7 1 , 8 8 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ), w e h e ld th a t jail
re c o rd s c o n tain in g sp e c if ic in c id e n t re p o rts w ritten b yc o rre c tio n s o f f ice rs g ra p h ica lly d o cu m en ti n g their de tai led o b serv ati o n s o f th e d ef en d an t’ s n u m ero u s d isci p li n ary o ff en ses w ere test im o n ial an d inad m issi b le un d er C r aw f or d v. W as hi ngt on , 541 U . S. 36, 51- 55 ( 2004) , w hen thos e off i cer s di d nott es t i fyattr i al . W e s peci fi cal l yhel d t hat“[t ] he tr i al cour terr ed i n admi t t i ng thos e por t i ons of the r epor t s thatcont ai ned the t es t i m oni al
s t at ement s . ” R us s eau , 171 S. W . 3d at881 ( emphasi s added) . O nl ythos e por t i ons of the otherw i s e admi s s i bl e j ai l bus i nes s r ecor ds thatcont ai ned t es t i m oni al des cr i pt i ons of
s peci fi c fa ct s and obs ervat i ons w er e i nadmi s s i bl e. W e have fur t herhel d t hat “boi l erpl at e” l anguage t hatdoes notcont ai n anys uch t es t i m oni al s t at ement s , narr at i ves of
s p e c if ic e v e n ts , o r w ri tte n o b s e rv a tio n s is a d m is s ib le . S e e S eg u n d o v . S ta te , 270 S. W . 3d 7 9 , 1 0 6 -0 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ). T e x a s c o u rts h a v e re c o g n ize d th is di s t i nct i on betw een ( 1) offi ci al r ecor ds thats etouta s t er i l e and r out i ne r eci t at i on of an offi ci al fi ndi ng orunambi guous fac tual m at t ers uch as a j udgm entof convi ct i on ora bar eb o n e s d isc ip lin a ryf

in d in g a n d (2 ) a f

a c tu a l d e sc rip tio n o f

sp e c if ic o b se rv a tio n s o r e v e n tsSMI TH -- 26

Se eCam pos v . S tate , 256 S.W .3d 757, 761-62 (Te x . App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 2008, th 3 pet. re f’d.) (holdingthat admission of autopsy repor t did not viol ate Confrontation Clause and explaining that distinction between a testimonial and non-testimonial report doe s not “depend solely on the inclusion or omission of detailed and graphicpersonal observations, but rather on the extent to which the rec ords are either sterile re citations of fa ct or a subjective na

rration of e vents ”re late d to thepers on ’s po te nti a l guilt) ; Azeez v. State, 2 0 3 S. W. 3 d 4 5 6 , 4 6 6 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2006) (c halleng ed re cords c ontained sterile recitations and w ere admissible over Cra wfo rd Confrontation Clause objec tion ) , re v 'd o n o ther g

ro un ds, 248 S.W .3d 18 2 ( Te x. Crim. App. 20 08 ); Gran t v . S tate , 218 S.W .3d 225, 229-32 (Te x . App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 2007, pet. re f’d) (some entries in high sc hool disciplinary rec ords containe d testimonial statements; “B eca

use the State did not show that the various teachers and sc hool administrators who provided the se statements were both unavailable to testify and had be en cross-examined pre vio us ly , w eho ld t

hetrial c ourt

e rron e ou sly

a dmi tte d th ete sti monial po rtion s o f t he se re c ords .” ); Ford v. State, 17 9 S. W.3 d 2 03 , 2 08 -0 9 ( Te x. App. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 05 , p e t. ref ' d) (upholdingadmission of inmate disciplinary rec ords that containe d only a sterile recitation of off enses a nd the punishments rec eived) . th a ti s a k i n t o t e s t i m o n y. 3 T h e d isc ip lin a ryre p o rt a n d h e a rin g re c o rd s in S tate ’s E x h ib its 7 3 a n d 7 4 m o stly cont ai n bar e- bones r eci t at i ons of i nfr act i ons comm i t t ed byappel l antori nvol ve tr i vi al
non- vi ol entdi s ci pl i naryvi ol at i ons . T he vi ol at i ons i ncl ude, forexampl e: fai l ur e t o s how up forw or k as s i gnm ent s , fai l ur e t o s how up form edi cal appoi nt m ent s , bei ng i n a pl ace he
w as nots uppos ed t o be att hatt i m e, and unauthor i zed e xchange of comm odi t i es s uch as
so u p , co o k ies a n d c a n d y . A lth o u g h th e se a re triv ial in f ra c tio n s, th e re p o rts s til l co n tain tes tim o n ial s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g a p p e llan t’s c o n d u c t. H o w e v e r, tw o p a rticu lar d o c u m e n ts g o b e y o n d a ste rile d e sc rip tio n a n d v io late appel l ant ’ s r i ght s as s etouti n R us s eau . T he r epor t s cont ai n des cr i pt i ons of the off ens es w hi ch appe art o have be en copi ed fr om the corr ect i ons offi cer s ’ r epor t s and w hi ch purpor tt o document , i n det ai l ed t erm s , appel l ant ’ s di s ci pl i naryoffe ns es . A ppel l antSMI TH -- 27

The onejail alterc ation ref erred to by

the State in closingarguments took place in the 4 county jail shortly

after appe llant’s arrest for theimmediate offense. This alterc ation was do c umente d in

an e xhibi t no t ob

je c te d to by

a pp e lla nt. p le a d e d “ n o t g u ilty” to th e o f f e n s e s a n d th e h e a ri n g s to o k le s s th a n s ix m in u te s . A ppel l ant ’ s al l eged di s ci pl i naryoffe ns es i ncl uded fi ght i ng w i t h anotheri nm at e i n t he
s how er s and expos i ng hi m s el f and masturbat i ng i n fr ontof a j ai l er . N one of the i ndi vi dual s w ho s uppos edl yobs erved appe l l ant ’ s di s ci pl i naryoffe ns es t es t i fi ed atthe in s ta n t tr ia l. T h e se d isc ip lin a ryre p o rts c o n tain tes tim o n ial s tate m e n ts w h ich w e re in a d m iss ib le
u n d er the C o n fro n tat ion C laus e b ec au se th e S tat e d id n o t sho w that the d ec laran ts w ere unavai l abl e t o t es t i fy , and appe l l antneverhad an opportuni t yt o cr os s - exami ne anyof th e m . R us s eau , 171 S. W . 3d at880. T he tr i al cour terr ed i n admi t t i ng thos e por t i ons of the repo rt s that cont ai n the t est i m on i al st at em ents . H a v in g f o u n d c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r, w e n e e d n o t re v e rse th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t if
w e c o n clud e b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t th at th e e rror d id n o t con tr ibu te t o ap p ell an t’ s p u n is h m e n t. C h a

p m a n v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 1 8 , 2 4 (1 9 6 7 ); s e e g e n e r a lly , W . L aFave,
e t al., C rim in a l P ro c e d u re § 2 7 .6 (e ) (2 d e d .1 9 9 9 ). H e re , alth o u g h th e in a d m iss ib le r e p o rts
w e re re a d a lo u d to th e ju ry, th e yw e re n e v e r e m p h a s iz e d a g a in b yth e S ta te in a n yw a y . T he St at e conc entr at ed i t s puni s hm entar gum ent s on t he hei nous nes s of the ca pi t al m ur der i t s e l f a n d a p p e l l a n t ’ s d i s r e g a r d f o ra n y o n e b u th i ms e l f. Gi v e n th e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we 4 concl ude bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatappel l antw as notharm ed bythe i ntr oduct i on ofSMI TH -- 28

We note that the Supreme Court re cently held in Baze v. R ees , 128 S.Ct . 20 (2008), that 5 the Kentuc ky

lethal-injec tion protocol, which is very simil ar to the Te x as protocol, doe s not violate the Eighth Amendment. th is e v id e n c e . C

f
. R us s eau , 1 7 1 S . W . 3 d at 88 1 . P o ints of erro r eigh teen an d n inetee n are overrul ed. I n appel l ant ’ s t w ent i eth poi ntof err or , he ar gues thatthe Texas l ethal
- i nj ect i on p ro to c o l v io la te s th e E ig h th a n d F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n ts to th e f e d e ra l c o n s titu tio n . B e c a u s e a p p e lla n t’ s e x e c u tio n is n o t im m in e n t, h is c la im is n o t r ip e f o r r e v ie w . G al l o v. S ta te , 239 S. W . 3d 757, 780 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2007) . Fur t herm or e, appel l antdi d not lit ig a te th is iss u e in th e trial c o u rt, an d so th e re c o rd is n o t su f f icie n tlyd e v e lo p e d f

o r th is C o u rt to re s o lv e h is c la im . See B ib le v . S ta te , 162 S. W . 3d 234, 250 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2005) . A ppel l ant ’ s t w ent i eth poi ntof err ori s overrul ed. 5 I n poi nt s of err ort w enty - one and tw enty - t w o, appel l antar gues thatthe Texas capi t al s ent enci ng s cheme i s uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i tfai l s t o as s i gn a bur den of pr oof on t he mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue, and thatthe tr i al cour terr ed i n r ej ect i ng hi s r eques tforan in s tru c tio n a s s ig n in g th e b u rd e n to th e S ta te . W e h a v e p re v io u s ly re je c te d th is a rg u m e n t. S e e B lu e v . S ta te , 1 2 5 S . W . 3 d 4 9 1 , 5 0 0 -01 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). F u rth er, th is C o u rt has hel d thatt he mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue i s a def ens i ve i s s ue i n w hi ch the St at e has no b u rd e n o f

p ro o f. W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 2 7 3 S .W .3 d 2 0 0 , 2 2 1 -2 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). Poi nt s of err ort w enty - one and tw enty - t w o ar e overrul ed.SMI TH -- 29

A p p e llan t co n ten d s in h is tw e n ty -th ird p o in t o f e rro r th a t A rticle 3 7 .0 7 1 is
uncons t i tut i onal undert he Ei ght h and Four t eenth A m endment s beca us e the mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue perm i t s t he veryt ype of ope n- ended di s cr et i on condemned i n Fur m an v. G e o rg ia , 408 U . S. 238 ( 1972) . W e have pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed thi s cl ai m , and appe l l ant
ra is e s n o th in g n e w to p e rs u a d e u s to re c o n s id e r t h is is s u e . S e e R a b y v . S ta te , 970 S. W . 2d 1 , 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); P o n d ex terv . S ta te , 9 4 2 S . W . 2 d 5 7 7 , 5 8 6 - 8 7 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). P o in t o f

e rr o r t w e n ty-th re e is o v e rr u le d . In p o in t o f

e rro r tw e n ty -f

o u r, ap p e llan t p o sits th a t th e m iti g a tio n iss u e is
u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se m e a n in g f u l ap p e llate re v iew o f

th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e is i m pos s i bl e. W e have r ej ect ed the cl ai m thatthe i s s ue depr i ves a def endantof

“ m e a n in g f

u l a p p e lla te re v ie w ” u n d e r t h e f e d e ra l c o n s titu tio n . R us s eau , 171 S. W . 3d at 8 8 6 ; P rystash v . S ta te , 3 S. W . 3d 522, 535- 36 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1999) ; G re e n v . S ta te , 934 S .W .2 d 9 2 , 1 0 6 -0 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); Mc Fa rla n d v . S ta te , 928 S. W . 2d 482, 498- 99 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1996) . Poi ntof err ortw enty - fouri s overrul ed. In p o in t o f

e rro r tw e n ty -f

iv e , ap p e llan t co n ten d s th a t A rticle 3 7 .0 7 1 is
uncons t i tut i onal beca us e the dea t h penal t ycons t i tut es cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent
u n d er the E igh th an d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en ts. R ely ing u p o n Ju sti ce B lack m u n ’s di s s ent i ng opi ni on i n C al l i ns v. C ol l i ns , 5 1 0 U . S . 1 1 4 1 (19 9 4 ) (B lack m u n , J. , d issen ti n g ), appel l antcl ai m s t hatt he Texas s cheme vi ol at es the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tcruel and unus ual p u n ishm en t bec au se itis th e p rod u ct of p ara d o x ical co n sti tuti o n al co m m an d s. T h is C o u rtSMI TH -- 30

h a s re p e a te d ly re

je c te d th is a rg u m e n t. Esc a m illa v . S ta te , 143 S. W . 3d 814, 828 ( T ex. C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); C h a m b e rla in v . S ta te , 9 9 8 S . W . 2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 8 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); McFarland , 928 S. W . 2d at520. T hi s poi ntof err ori s overrul ed. Fi nal l y , i n appel l ant ’ s t w enty - s i xth poi ntof err or , he cont ends thatA r t i cl e 37. 071 vi ol at es the Ei ght h and Four t eenth A m endment s beca us e i tfai l s t o r equi r e thatj ur or s be i nform ed thata s i ngl e hol doutj ur oron anys peci al i s s ue w oul d r es ul ti n an aut om at i c l i fe
s ent ence . A ppel l antfur t herar gues thatthe “10- 12 rul e” vi ol at es the Ei ghth A m endment p rin c ip les d isc u ss e d in Mi l l s v. M ar yland , 4 8 6 U . S . 3 6 7 (19 8 8 ), an d that the tri al co u rt vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byi ns t ruct i ng the j uryi n t hi s m anner . W e have p re v io u s ly d e c id e d th e s e is s u e s a d v e rs e ly to a p p e lla n t. R us s eau , 171 S. W . 3d at886 ( 10- 1 2 R u le) ; Sh a n n o n v . S ta te , 942 S. W . 2d 591, 600- 01 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1996) ( s i ngl e hol do u t j u ror); L a w to n v . S ta te , 913 S. W . 2d 542, 558- 59 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1995) ( s i ngl e hol doutj ur orand 10- 12 R ul e) . Poi ntof err ortw enty - s i x i s overrul ed. W e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt.

M e y e r s , J .

D E L I V E R E D : M ay6, 2009 PU BL I SH