1

M aj or i t yopi ni on, at39- 41. 

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

OF TE XAS N O . A P - 75, 352
C H R I STO PH ER A N TH O N Y Y O U N G , 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 5 - CR- 1 1 8 3 I N T HE 1 8 7 DI S TR I CT COURT TH BEX AR CO UNTY
P RI CE , J ., f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on.

DI S S E NT I NG OP I NI ON I d i s s e n tt o t h e Co u r t ’ s r e j e c t i o n o f

t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s f

i f t e e n t h po i nt of

e r r o r . I n my

1

v iew , the re c o rd re v e a ls b o th e rro r in th e ju ryc h a rg e g iv e n a t th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se o f trial, and “e gr egi ous har m ” r es ul t i ng fr om t hater r or . I w oul d t her efor e r ever s e t he convi ct i on and
r emand t he ca us e fora new puni s hm entpr ocee di ng.Y o u n g - 2

2 A ct s 1991, 72 L eg. , ch. 838, § 1, eff
. Sept
. 1, 1991. nd 3 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . arts. 3 6
. 1 4 an d 3 7
. 0 7 1 , § 2 f(3 ). 4 6 8 6 S
. W
. 2 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 1 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (op inion o n reh ’g). 5 E
. g. , A llen v . S ta te , 2 5 3 S
. W
. 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). S ince the e n ac tm en t of

the s tatu torym it igation sp ec ial issue in 1 9 9 1 , the L eg isl ature 2 h a s s p e c if

ic a llyre q u ire d trial c o u rts a t th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se o f c a p ital m u rd e r c a se s to in stru c t ju ro rs th a t th e yn e e d n o t ag re e o n w h a t sp e c if ic e v id e n c e , if a n y , p ro f f e re d in
m i t i gat i on o f t he dea t h penal t y , i s s uffi ci entt o w ar r anta nor m at i ve j udgm entt hatl i fe i m p ri so n m enti s a more appr opr i at e mora l r es pons e t han t he dea t h penal t y . So l ong as at l eas tt en j ur or s can a gr ee thatt her e are s uffi ci ent m it i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s , t heyneed not agr ee whi c h c i r c u ms t a n c e o rc o mbi n a t i o n o f c i r c u ms t a n c e s t r i g g e r e d t h e i rc o l l e ct i ve
n o rm ati v e re sp o n se. S ec ti o n 2 f(3 ) of A rt icl e 3 7
. 0 7 1 o f th e C o d e o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re
m andat es s uch an i ns t ruct i on and i s t he “l aw appl i cabl e t o the cas e” i n cont empl at i on of A r t i cl e 36. 14 of t he C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e. I n fai l i ng t o gi ve t hati ns t ruct i on, t he t r i al 3
cour tpl ai nl yer r ed. T o d eterm ine w h ethe r this erro r w as eg reg iou sly h arm fu l un d er A lm a n za v . S ta te , w e 4
cons i der1) t he ent i r et yof the puni s hm entchar ge i t s el f, 2) t he evi dence adduce d att he puni s hm entphas e, i ncl udi ng t he cont es t ed i s s ues and w ei ghtof t he pr obat i ve evi dence , 3) t he ar gum ent s of couns el , and 4) anyot herr el evanti nfor m at i on fr om t he re cor d. W hen s uch 5Y o u n g - 3

6 Id
. 7 N g o v . S ta te , 1 7 5 S
. W
. 3 d 7 3 8 , 7 5 0 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 8 M aj or i t yopi ni on, at40- 41. a r evi ew r evea l s t hatt he err oraff ect ed t he verybas i s of t he cas e, depr i ved t he def endantof a val uabl e r i ght , orvi t al ly aff ect ed a de fens i ve t heor y , w e conc l ude t hatt he err orw as
e g re g io u s ly h a rm f

u l. T h e h a rm m u s t b e s h o w n to b e “ a c tu a l,” n o t ju s t “ th e o re tic a l.” 6 7 T ur ni ng fi r s tt o t he puni s hm ent char ge as a w hol e, I not e t hatt he mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue i t s el f i s ambi guous w i t h r es pectt o t he ques t i on w het herj ur or s have t o agr ee thatany par t i cul arci r cumst ance orci r cumst ance s w ar r anta l i fe s ent ence . T he ver di ctfor m t hatw as
s ubm i t t ed as ked t he j ur yt o s uppl yone of tw o ans w er s t o t he mi t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue: A nsw er: W e , th e ju ry , u n a n im o u sly f in d a n d d e ter m in e th a t th e a n sw e r to t hi s Speci al I s s ue i s “N o”. A nsw er: W e, t he jur y , becau se at l eastt en (10) j urors fi nd t hat there i s a

s uffi ci entm i ti g ati ng ci r cumst ance orar e s uffi ci entm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o w ar r ant t hat a s ent ence of l i fe impri s onm ent r at hert han a death s ent ence be i m pos ed, ans w ert hi s Speci al I s s ue “Y es ”. T h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s j u r o r s o p t e d f o rt h e f i r s ta n s w e r . B u t , c o n tr a r y t o t h e v i e w o f t h e m a j o r i t y, 8 t he j ur or s ’ unani m i t yw i t h r es pectt o t hei rul t i m at e ans w erdoes notgu ara n tee that t hey unani m ous l yr ej ect ed t he exi s t ence of anym i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance orci r cumst ance s
w ar r ant i ng a l i fe s ent ence . T her e r emai ns t he t heor et i cal pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he j ur or s bel i eved t hatt heycoul d onl yat t ai n unani m i t yw i t h r es pectt o w het hera su ff ici entm i t i gat i ngY o u n g - 4

9 S e e A llen v . S ta te , supra , at 264- 65 ( “Fr om t he fa ctt hatt he s el f- defe ns e i ns t ruct i on cont ai ned expl i ci tr eas onabl e- doubtl anguage , t he j ur y m i ght w el l i nfer t hat i ts houl d expec t to see com par abl yexpl i ci tr eas onabl e- doubtl anguage i n t he cons enti ns t ruct i on i f s uch a s t andar d w as i ndeed a pp li ca b le t her e. T he cons pi cuous abs ence of s uch expl i ci tl anguage f ro m th e c o n s e n t in s tr u c tio n w o u ld n o t lik e ly h a v e b e e n lo s t o n th e ju ro rs .” ). ci rcum st ance o r ci rcum st ances exis t ed t o w arr ant a l i fe sent ence (and he nce, choose the fi rs t
ans w er ) i f t heycoul d a ll agr ee ( or at l eas t t en of t hem) thatt he s a me m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance
o rc i r c u m s t a n c e s w e r e s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i n c e t h e m t h a tl i f e w a s t h e m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y. A bs entt he Sect i on 2f( 3) i ns t ruct i on, t her e i s not hi ng i n t he s peci al i s s ue i t s el f ort he ver di ct f o r m t o f o r e c l o s e t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y. N orw oul d anyt hi ng i n t he bal ance of t he puni s hm entchar ge nec es s ar i l ydi s s uade the juro rs fro m this view
. T h ere is lan g u ag e in the p u n ishm en t ch arg e p ertaining to the fu ture danger ous nes s s peci al i s s ue t hat i ns t ruct ed t he j ur or s t hatt heyneed notal l agr ee w i t h r es pect t o w hats pecif

i c evi dence w oul d convi nce them t hatt he appe l l antw oul d notcons t i t ut e a cont i nu ing t hr eatt o s oci et ybefor e ans w er i ng t hats peci al i s s ue “no. ” The cons pi cuous
a b se n c e o f a sim ilar in stru c tio n p e rta in in g to th e m iti g a tio n sp e c ial iss u e c o u ld c o n c e iv a b ly h a v e c o n v i n c e d t h e j u r o r s t h a t , i n f a c t , t h e y d id

have t o agr ee on the s peci fi c mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance orci r cumst ance s befor e answ er i ng t hat s peci al i s s ue “y es . ” T her e i s not hi ng 9 else in th e p u n ishm en t cha rge as a w h o le t h at serv ed u n eq u ivo ca ll yto inf o rm the ju rors ot her w i s e. T ur ni ng t o t he evi dence eli ci t ed att r i al , I obs er ve t hatt he appe l l antpr es ent ed evi dence of a tum ul tuous chi l dhood. W hen he w as ei ghty ear s ol d, hi s fatherw as m ur der edY o u n g - 5

10 M or eover , as t he appe l l antpoi nt s out , a j ur orw ho bel i eved he had t o ans w ert he m i t i gat i on s peci al i s s ue “no” unl es s atl eas tt en j ur or s coul d agr ee thatei t hert he di s advant aged c hi l dhood ort he i nt oxi cat i on ( orbot h) w ar r ant ed a l i fe s ent ence w oul d not l i kel ycaus e t he j uryt o deadl ock byper s i s t i ng i n hi s ow n per s onal vi ew t hatt he mi t i gat i on w a s s u f f ic ie n t, th u s a s s u ri n g a lif e s e n te n c e . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . art. 3 7
. 0 7 § (g) (“If t he j ur y. . . i s unabl e t o ans w eranyi s s ue s ubm i t t ed under Subse ct i on . . . ( e) of t hi s ar t i cl e, t he cour ts hal l s ent ence t he defenda nt t o confi nement i n t he i ns t i tut i onal di vi s i on of t he Texas D ep artm en t of

C ri m inal Ju sti ce fo r l ife.”). and hi s s i s t er w as m ol es t ed and i m pr egnat ed by hi s s t epfa t her
. T he appel l ant ar gued t hathe
neverr ecove r ed fr om t hes e even ts emot i onal l yas he neve rr ece i ved t he couns el i ng ort he fa ther f igu re tha t he n ee d ed
. H e b ec am e a n g ryan d w ith d raw n an d b eg an u sing d rug s. T h ere
w as al s o evi dence t hatatt he t i m e he c om m i t t ed t he ca pi t al m u rde r h e w as undert he in f lu e n c e o f a lc o h o l, m a riju a n a a n d c ra c k c o c a in e . It i s c o n c e iv a b le th a t th e ju ro rs c o u ld have ha rbor ed var i ous opi ni ons as t o t he mi t i gat i ng val ue of t hi s evi dence
. Som e mi ghthave bel i eved the evi dence of a di s advant aged c hi ldh o o d w ar r ant ed a l i fe s ent ence , butnott he
ev iden ce o f in tox icati o n , w h il e o thers m igh t h av e b eli ev ed v ice-v ersa . If a t l ea st t en juro rs b e liev e d th a t one orthe other w as m i t i gat i ng, but no t en j ur or s coul d agr ee on ei therone , and t he j ur or s co n s t rued t he s peci al i s s ue t o r equi r e agr eementas t o t he s peci fi c mi t i gat i ng
e v i d e n c e t h a tw a r r a n t e d a l i f e s e n t e n c e , t h e y c o u l d h a v e e r r o n e o u s l y ( b u tu n a n i m o u s l y)
ans w er ed t he s peci al i s s ue “no. ” A gai n, t he theor et i cal h a rm is q u ite e v id e n t. 10 D ur i ng fi nal ar gum ent s , defe ns e couns el i ndepende nt l yar gued t he mi t i gat i ng sig n if ica n c e o f

b o th th e e v id e n c e o f

th e a p p e llan t’s d isa d v a n tag e d c h ild h o o d a n d o f h is i nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e of the off ens e. For i t s par t , t he St at e ar gued t hatt he app el l anthadY o u n g - 6

11 C o m p a re N g o v . S ta te , supra , at 750- 51 ( egr egi ous l yhar m ful j ur ychar ge err orfound in f a ilin g to re q u ir e ju ry u n a n im ity w h e re , in tera lia , t hr ee t i m es dur i ng cour s e of t r i al j udge and pr os ecut orer r oneous l yi nfor m ed j ur or s t hatt heyneed not be unani m ous i n t hei rver di ct w h en in f

ac t th e law req u ir ed them to b e). had ot herfatherfi gur es i n hi s l i fe, and t hat t he evi dence s how ed t he drugs and al cohol had notaff ect ed hi m on t he m or ni ng of t he offe ns e. T he St at e di d not s ugges t , how ever , t hatt he j ur or s w oul d have t o agr ee upon the s peci fi c evi dence t hatt heyfound suffi ci entt o w ar r ant a l i f e s e n t e n c e b e f

o r e t h e yc o u l d a n s wert h e mi t i g a t i o n s p e c i a l i s s u e “ y e s . ” I n s t e a d , t he 11 S tate a rg u e d th a t none of the app el l ant’ s m i t i gati ng evidence w as com pel l i ng e no ug h to cause t he j ur yt o exer ci s e i t s nor m at i ve j udgm ent t o as s es s a l i fe s ent ence . St i l l , beca us e t her e w as
m or e t han one ki nd of m i t i gat i ng evi dence t hat m i ght i ndepende nt l y have w arr an ted a li fe
se n ten c e , itc a n n o t b e ru led o u t th a t th e q u e stio n c a m e u p in th e ju ry ro o m w h e th e r u n a n im ity
w as r equi r ed w i t h resp ec tt o t he par t i cul arm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance orci r cumst ance s t hat ju stif ied life . T h e ju ro rs d e lib e ra ted f o r ju st u n d e r f

o u r h o u rs b e f

o re re tu rn in g th e ir p u n ish m e n t v e rd ict. D u rin g th a t tim e th e y d id n o t s e n d o u t a ju ryn o te o r o th e rw ise in d ica te
a s t ruggl e t o reso l ve anyambi gui t yi n t hei runder s t andi ng of t he r equi r ement s of t he
m i t i gat i o n s p e c i a l i s s u e . But t h e l a c k o f a j u r y n o t e i s n o t d e t e r mi n a t i v e . I t c o u l d j u s t as
r eadi l yi ndi cat e t hat , i n t he abs ence of an expl i ci t i ns t ruct i on, t he j ur or s m i s t akenl yconcl uded t h a tt h e y d id

have t o be unani m ous as t hatt heycor r ect l yconcl uded t hatt heydi d not . T he r ecor d cannot ru le o u t , t her efor e, t hatt he t heor et i cal har m i n t hi s cas e di d not
r i pen i nt o actual har m . W e have s ai d t hatt here is no bur den of pr oof w hen i tcomes t o anY o u n g - 7

12 W a rn e r v . S ta te , 2 4 5 S
. W
. 3 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 13 Cf
. O ’ N eal v. McAni nch , 513 U
. S
. 4 3 2 (19 95) ( even i n cont extof fe der al habea s r evi ew of s t at e cour t j udgm ent s , w her e St at e’ s i nt er es t i n fi nal i t yi s ati t s zeni t h, fede r al j udge w ho fi nds r ecor d i n equi poi s e w i t h r es pect t o w het her er r or i s har m l es s s houl d concl ude t hat the e rror is ha rm fu l)
. anal y s i s for egr egi ous har m . I n a cas e for egr egi ous har m t hat i s as cl os e as t hi s one, and 12

w hen t he ul t i m at e pena l t yi s ats t ake, w e s houl d er ron t h e s i de of c aut i on. I ti s cl ear 13 enough t hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s er r ordepr i ved t he appe l l antof a va l uabl e r i ght

— t he r i ghtt o be
as s ur ed t hatt he j ur or s w oul d notdel i ber at e upon hi s var i abl e m i t i gat i ng evi dence undert he
m i s t aken a s s um pt i on t hatt heym us ta g r e e o n whi c h mi t i g a t i n g c i r c u ms t ance orci r cumst ance s
w ar r ant ed l i fe be for e fi ndi ng s uch a s ent ence appr opr i at e. I w oul d t her efor e hol d that t he appel l ant s uffe r ed egr egi ous har m , r ever s e hi s convi ct i on, and r emand the caus e fora new p u n ish m e n t h e a rin g . B e c a u se th e C o u rt d o e s n o t, I res p e c tf u llyd iss e n t.

Fi l ed: A pr i l 22, 2009 P ub l i sh