NO. AP-77039

_______________________________________________

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________________________________

JEFFREY KEITH PREVOST

VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS

________________________________________________ Capital Murder Conviction on Appeal from the District Court of Harris County, Texas 351st Judicial District Cause No. 1414421

________________________________________

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

_______________________________________________

APPELLANT WAIVES DOUGLAS M. DURHAM ORAL ARGUMENT State Bar Number:06278450 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 4100 Houston, Texas 77002 (832)390-2252 Telephone (832)390-2350 Facsimile ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT JEFFREY KEITH PREVOST AP-77,039 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 2/5/2015 3:02:57 PM Accepted 2/6/2015 8:59:58 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKI DENTI TY OF PARTI ES AND COUNSEL

Pu rs uan t t o T E X .R.A P P .P. 3 8 .1 (a), t h e fo l lo wi n g i s a li s t of al l i nt eres t ed p art i es i n thi s cau se: 1
. J EFFREY KEITH PREVOST- Defen d an t/ Ap p el l an t 2
. R. P. “ Sk i p ” Co rn el i u s St at e Bar No . 0 4 8 31 5 0 0 Lau ra Du em er Co rn el i u s St at e Bar No . 0 4 8 31 2 0 0 Defen d an t/ Ap p el lan t ’ s Tri al Co u n s el 2 02 8 Bu ffal oe Terrace Ho u st o n, Tex as 7 7 0 19 3
. Al l en Tan n er St at e Bar No . 1 9 6 37 1 0 0 Defen dan t/ Ap p el l an t ’ s Tri al Co u ns el 9 17 Fran k l i n St reet , Su i t e 5 5 0 Ho u st o n, Tex as 7 7 0 02 3
. DOUGLAS M
. DURHAM
- A ppe lla te C ounse l f

or D e f e nda nt/Ap p el l an t St at e Bar No . 0 6 2 78 4 5 0 Defen dan t/ Ap p el l an t ’ s Co u n s el o n Ap p eal 2 8 0 0 Po s tOakBl v d . St e. 4 10 0 Ho u st o n, Tex as 7 7 0 56 4
. Dev o n An d ers o n - Di s t ri ctAt to rn ey fo r Harri s Co u nt y , Tex as 1 20 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0 Ho u st o n, Tex as 7 7 0 02 5
. An n a Em

m o n s - As s i s t an tDi s tri ctAt t o rn ey fo r Harri s Co un t y , Tex as 1 20 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0 Ho u st o n, Tex as 7 7 0 02 6
. Crai g Go o d h art - As s i s t an tDi st ri ctAt t o rn ey fo r Harri s Co u n t y , Tex as 1 20 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0 iiHo u st o n, Tex as 7 7 0 02

7
. Al l an C u

r r y , Ch i ef Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n Di s t ri ctAt t o rn ey ’ s Offi ce fo r Harri s Co u n t y , Tex as 1 20 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0 Ho u st o n, Tex as 7 7 0 02 ____/s/_____________________ DOUGLAS M. DURHAM 2800 Post Oak B lvd. Ste. 4100 Houston, Tex as 77056

iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS Pag e

Id en t i t y o f Part i es an dCo u n s el
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i Tab le o f Co n t en t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i In d ex o f Au t h ori ti es (Cas es ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Co n s t i tu t i o n s an dSt atu es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i i Prel im i n ary

St at em en t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 St at em en tReg ard i n g Oral Arg u m en t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 St at em en to f Fact s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Qu es t i o ns Pres en t ed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 W HETHER THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF
“ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY” VIOLATES DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AM ENDM ENT? W HETHER THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF
“ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY VIOLATES DUE COURSE OF LAW UNDER ARTICLE ONE, SECTION NINETEEN OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION? W HETHER THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF
“ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY” AS REQUIRED BY LAW WAS FUNDAM ENTAL ERROR? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND TEXAS CODE OF CRIM INAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 3 7 .0 7 1 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING TEXAS PENAL CODE ART. 1 9 .0 2 -1 9 .0 3 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? ivW HETHER THE EXCUSAL OF PROSPECTIVE JUROR 7 7 (W ILLIAM

HERED) BASED ON THE STATE’ S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE (OVER DEFENSE OBJ ECTION) WAS ERROR BY THE TRIAL COURT? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF IM PROPER EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF VICKI ALEXANDER’ S UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF THOM ESA HOLLIN’ S UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF AN IM PROPER AND PREJ UDICIAL QUESTION BY THE PROSECUTOR? St at em en to f Fact s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Po i n to f Erro r On e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF “ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY” VIOLATES DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AM ENDM ENT Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 6 Po i n to f Erro r Two
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF “ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY VIOLATES DUE COURSE OF LAW UNDER ARTICLE ONE, SECTION NINETEEN OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 6

vPo i n to f Erro r Th ree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7

THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF “ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY” AS REQUIRED BY LAW WAS FUNDAM ENTAL ERROR Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 7 Po i n to f Erro r Fo u r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 8 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND TEXAS CODE OF CRIM INAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 3 7 .0 71 UNCONSTITUTIONAL Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Po i n to f Erro r Fi v e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING TEXAS PENAL CODE ART. 1 9 .0 2 -1 9 .0 3 UNCONSTITUTIONAL Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 9 Po i n to f Erro r Si x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 THE EXCUSAL OF PROSPECTIVE J UROR 7 7 (W ILLIAM HERED) BASED ON THE STATE’ S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE (OVER DEFENSE OBJ ECTION) WAS ERROR BY THE TRIAL COURT Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 0 Po i n to f Erro r Sev en. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF IM PROPER EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE Fact u al Su m

m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
viSt an d ardo f Rev i ew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4 Po i n to f Erro r Ei g h t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF VICKI ALEXANDER’ S UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY Fact u al Su m

m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 8 Po i nto f Erro r Ni n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF THOM ESA HOLLIN’ S UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY Fact u al Su m

m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2 Po i n to f Erro r Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF AN IM PROPER AND PREJ UDICIAL QUESTION BY THE PROSECUTOR Fact u al Su m

m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Arg u m en tan dAu th o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3 Co n cl u s i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 4 Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5
viiCert i fi cat e o f Co m pl i an ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6

viiiI NDEX OF AUTHORI TY (CASES) Pag e Alm a n z a v. Sta t e , 6 86 S.W
. 2 d1 5 7 , 1 7 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 5 )

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Ap p r en di v. New Jer

s ey, 5 3 0 U.S. 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 5 , 5 1 Br oo ks v. St a t e , 8 4 7 S.W .2 d2 4 7 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p. 1 9 9 3 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Byr d v. Sta t e, 2 0 0 8 Tex . Ap p. LEXIS 6 63 0 (Tex . Ap p . - Fo rth W o rt h 20 0 8 )

. . . . . 5 0 Cl ark v. Sta t e, 3 6 5 S.W .3 d3 3 3 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 1 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Co ker v. Geo r g i a , 4 3 3 U.S. 5 84 (1 9 7 7 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Ex p a r t e Pa t t er

s on , 7 4 0 S.W .2 d7 6 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 3 ). .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 Ex p a r t e W

a t ki n s , 4 8 9 S.W .2 d6 1 7 , 6 1 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 7 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 7 Fl or es v. Jo h ns on , 2 0 1 F.3 d4 56 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 , 6 Hi ll v. Sta t e , 8 1 7 S.W .2 d8 1 6 (Tex . Ap p .– Eas t l an d 1 9 9 1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Jo nes v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 5 6 6 U.S. 2 2 7 (1 9 99 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 5 , 5 0 Mo r a gu ezv. St a t e , 7 0 1 S.W .2 d 9 0 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 86 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Mu l l a n ey v. W

i l b u r , 4 2 1 U.S. 6 8 4 (1 9 7 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 5 , 5 2 Per r y v. Sta t e , 1 5 8 S.W .3 d4 3 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 S mi th v. Sta t e , 2 0 1 2 Tex . Ap p . LEXIS 1 0 05 6 (Tex . Ap p . - Fo rtW o rt h 2 01 2 ) . . . .4 8 Sta te v. ex r el

Lyko s v. Fi n e, 3 3 0 S.W
. 3 d9 04 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p. 2 0 1 1 ). . . . . . . . . 4 9

ixCONSTI TUTI ONS AND STATUTES Pag e

TEX. PENAL CODE § 1 9 .0 3(a)(8 ).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 TEX. CODE OF CRIM . PRO. § 1 .1 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 TEX. CODE OF CRIM . PRO. § 3 7 .0 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TEX. CODE OF CRIM . PRO. § 3 7 .0 7 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 U. S. CONST. AM END. V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v , 4 6 U. S. CONST. AM END. VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 U. S. CONST. AM END. XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v , 4 6

xNO. AP-7 7 0 3 9

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J EFFREY KEITH PREVOST

VS. T HE STATE OF TEXAS

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cap i t al M u rd er Co n vi ct i o n o n Ap p eal fro m t h e Di s tri ctCo u rto f Harri s Co u n t y , Tex as 35 1 s tJ u d ici al Di s t ri ct Cau se No . 1 4 1 4 4 2 1

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ APPELLANT' S BRI EF

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ TO THE HONORABLE JU D GES OF THE COURT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS: COM ES NOW , J EFFREY KEITH PREVOST, Ap p el l an t i n the ab o v e s t y l ed
an d n u m b ered cau se an dwo ul dres p ect fu l l y s h o w th e Co u rtas fo l l ows : P RELI MI NARY STATEMENT Th i s i s an ap p eal fro m

a s en t en ce o f d eat h fo r t h e o ffen se o f Cap i t al M u rd er
as p ro s cri b edb y

Sect i o n 1 9.0 3 (a)(8 ) o f t he Tex as Pen al Co de. A Harri s Co un t y g ran djury

retu rn eda o n e p arag rap h i n d i ct m en t o n th e 1 5 t h d ay o f Feb ru ary

2 0 1 4
. (CR-I-0 0 2 ). Th e fi rs tp arag rap h [o m i t ti n g t h e fo rm al p art s ] al l eg edth at : 1“JEFFREY KEITH PREVOST, hereafter styled the Defendant, on or about

May 20, 2011, did then and there unlawfully, during the same criminal transaction, intentionally and knowingly cause the death of SHERRY WHITE, by shooting SHERRY WHITE with a deadly weapon, to wit: a firearm, and by stabbing SHERRY WHITE with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife, and intentionally and knowingly cause the death of KYLE LAVERGE, by shooting KYLE LAVERGE with a deadly weapon, to wit: a firearm. (CR-I; p. 12). On March 24, 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of Capital Murder. (XIX- p. 7). On April 5, 2014, the jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to special issue one (1) was “yes” and the answer to special issue two (2) was“no” the Court order Appellant punishment at death. (CR-VII; p. 1502-1503 and RRXXX-p. 3-4). Notice of Appeal was timely filed on April 5, 2014. (CR-VII; p. 1504- 1506). The Court certified Appellant’s right to Appeal on April 5, 2014. (CR-VII; p. 1507). STATEMENT OF FACTS ( i ) PRELIMINARY MATTERS From on or about May 11, 2011 through April 2, 2014 the Defense filed various pre-trial motions, including but not limited to: 1) Motions for Psychiatric Examination to determine both Competency and Sanity; [CR-I; p. 7-9]; 2) Motion for appointment of an Investigator; [CR-I; p. 31]; 3) Motions in Limine;[CR-I; p.59]; 4) Motion to Suppress evidence; [CR-I; p. 67-69]; 5) Various Motions for Discovery; [CR-I; p. 69-77; p. 136; p. 140]; 6) Motion for Hearing on Admissibility 2o f an y s tat em en tb y Th e Defen d an tWh ether W ri t t enOr Oral o r Ev i d en ce res u l t i n g fro m sam e; [CR-I; p . 0 9 4 ] ; 7 ) M o t i o n t o Sup pres s Co n fes s i o n 1 ; [CR-I; p . 0 9 9 ] ; 8 ) M ot i o n t o p recl u de t h e d eat h p en al t y as a s en t en ci n g o p t i o n an dt o d ecl are Tex as Co d e o f Cri m i n al Pro cedu re Art i cl e 3 7.0 71 u n co n s t i tu t i o nal ci t i n g Jo n es v. Un i t ed Sta tes 5 66 U.S. 2 2 7 (1 9 9 9 ); Ap p r en di v. New Jer

s ey , 5 30 U.S. 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ); an d Ri n g v. Ar iz o n a , 5 3 6 U.S. 5 8 4 (2 0 0 2 ). [CR-I; p .1 0 3] ; 9 ) M o t i on t o Decl are t h e Tex as Pen al Co d e Sect i o n s 1 9 .0 2 -1 9 .0 3 Un co n s ti tu t io n al Un d er t h e Ei gh th Amen d

men t an d ci t i ng Mu l l a n ey v. W

il b u r , 42 1 U.S. 6 8 4 (1 9 7 5 )

. [CR-I; p . 1 1 0 ] ; 1 0 ) M o t i o n t o Precl u d e t h e o ffer o f Ex t ran eo u s Offen s es . [CR-I; p . 1 1 7 ] ; 1 1) M o t i o n fo r Ju ry In s t ru ct i o ns t o In fo rm

J u ro rs o f Res u l to f Li fe Sen t en ce i f t h ey can ’ tan swer an y
s p eci al i s s u e. [CR-I; p . 1 2 5 ] ; 1 2 ) M o t i o n t o Li s tW i t n es s es an dReq u es tfo r Cri m i n al Hi st o ri es . [CR-I; p .1 5 1 ] ; 1 3 ) M o t i o n t o Pro p o u n ds p eci fi c qu es t i on s t o Ven i rem en
re: Bu rd en o f Pro o f o n Sp eci al Is s u e: M i t i g at i o n . [CR-I; p .1 6 4 ] ; 1 4 ) M o t i on t o Decl are t h e St atu t o ry

Defi n i t i on o f M i t i gat i n g Ev i den ce Un co n s t i tu t i on al . [CR-I; p . 1 6 8 ] ; 1 5 ) M o ti o n t o h ol d Tex . Co d e o f Cri m i n al Pro cedu re Art . 3 7 .0 1 an d Art . 3 7 .0 7 1

1 The Motion to Suppress Confession was filed without an Order. (CR-I ; p. 67-69). There was no hearing

on the Motion to Suppress. (RR-I -XXXI X). F urther, the audio and video recording of Appellant’s interrog ation where he described killing the two victims (State’s Ex h ibit 197) was admitted into evidence with Allen Tanner stating “no objection.” (RR-XXI ; p. 148). This waives any

error reg a

rding issues of admissibility previously raised in the Motion to for Hearing o n

Admissibility

of any statement or in Motion to Suppress. See Moraguez v. State , 701 S.W
. 2d 902 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1986). 3s ec. 2 (a)Un co n s t itu t i o n al Wherei n Pro s ecu t o r Hav e Un fet t ered Di s cret i o n To Seek

Deat h Pen al t y . [CR-I; p . 1 8 6 ; p . 1 9 9; p .1 4 1 3 ] ; 1 6) M o t io n t o Ho l dArt . 3 7 .0 71 Un co ns t i tut i o n al ci t i n g Fl o r es v. Jo h n s o n , 2 10 F.3 d 4 5 6 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0 )[CR-I; p . 1 8 6 ] ; 1 7) M o t i o n t o Decl are Art . 3 7 .0 7 1 Faci al l y Un co ns t i tu ti o nal fo r Vag u en es s [CR-I; p . 1 9 9 ] ; 1 8 ) M o t i o n Req u es t i n g In s tru ct i on t o th e J ury Reg ard i n g Res i du al Do ub t as M i t i gat i o n an d Ord er o f t h e Co urt . [CR-I; p . 2 4 4 ]
.

(i i ) PRELIM INARY ORDERS BY COURT On M ay 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 , th e Co u rten t ered o rd ers g ran t in g th e Ap p el l an t ’ s M o t i o n s fo r Ps y ch iat ri c Ev al u at i o n s fo r b o t h Co m p et en cy an dSan i t y . (CR-I; p . 1 0 an dp . 4 2 ). On o r ab ou t J u ne 2 9 , 2 01 1 , Ap p el l an twas i n t erv i ewedb y St ep hen P. McCa r y Ph d ., a cl i n i cal p s y ch o l o g is t , wh o d et erm i n edth at Ap p el l an twas b o t h co mp et en t t o s t an d t ri al an d s a n e atth e t i m e o f t h e o ffen s e. (CR-I; p . 4 3 -4 7 an dp . 4 8 -5 2 ). Onth ats am e d ay , Dr. M cCrary di ag n o sed[fo l l o wi n g th e DSM -IV-TR (2 0 00 )] Ap p el l an twi t h a

“ m oo dd is o rd er n o t o t h erwi s e s p eci fi ed ” wi t h “ d el u s i o n al an d jeal o u s ty p e” feat u res . (CR-I; p . 4 6 an dp . 5 1 ). On J an u ary 6 , 2 0 1 4, t he Co u rt g ran t edAp p el l an t’ s M o t i o n t o ap p o i ntan i n v es t i g at or. 2 (CR-I; p . 3 2 ). OnFeb ru ary 1 7 , 2 01 4 , th e Co u rtd en i ed Ap p el l an t ’ s M o t i o n t o Precl u d e t h e Deat h Pen al t y as a Sen t en ci n g Op ti o n An dt o

2 B uddy

Sledg e, Private Investig ator L icense No. A13785 was appointed and to be compensated by

the Treasurer of Harris County, Tex as. (CR-I ; 32). 4Decl are Tex . Co de o f Cri m . Pro . 3 7 .0 7 1 Un co n s t i tu t i on al ci t i n g Jo n es v. Un i t ed

Sta tes 5 66 U.S. 2 2 7 (1 9 9 9 ); Ap p r en di v. New Jer

s ey , 5 30 U.S. 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ) an d Ri n g v. Ar iz o n a , 5 3 6 U.S. 5 8 4 (2 0 0 2 ). (CR-I; p . 1 0 9 ). On Feb ru ary 1 7, 2 0 14 th e Co u rt d en i edAp p el l an t ’ s M o t i o n t o Decl are t he Tex as Pen al Co d e Sect i o n s 1 9
. 0 2-1 9 .0 3 Un co ns t i tut i o n al Un d er t h e Ei gh th Amen dmen t ci t i n g Mu l l a n ey v. W i l b ur , 4 2 1 U.S. 6 8 4 (1 9 7 5 ). (CR-I; p . 1 16 ). OnFeb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 th e Co u rtd en i edAp p el l an t ’ s M ot i o n t o Precl u d e t h e o ffer o f Ex t ran eo us Offen s es (CR-I; p . 1 2 4). On Feb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 th e Co u rtd en i edAp p el lan t ’ s M o t i o n fo r J ury In s t ru ct i o n s t o In fo rm

J u ro rs o f Res u l t of Li fe Sen ten ce i f t h ey can ’ tan s wer an y

s p eci al i s s ue t h en th e Defen d an t wi ll b e g iv en Li fe i n Pri s on . (CR-I; p . 1 2 7 ). OnM arch 7 , 2 0 14 th e Co u rtg ran t ed Ap p el l an t ’ s M o t i o n t o Li stW i tn es ses an dReq u es t fo r Cri m i n al Hi s t o ri es . (CR-I; p . 1 6 3 ). On Feb ru ary

1 7 , 2 0 1 4 t h e Co u rtd en i edAp pel l an t ’ s M o t i o n t o Pro p o u n d
s p eci fi c qu es t i o n s t o Ven i rem en re: Bu rd en o f Pro o f o n Sp eci al Is su e: M i t ig at i o n . (CR-I; p .1 6 7). On Feb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 th e Co u rtd en iedAp p el lan t ’ s M o ti o n t o Decl are t h e St atu t o ry

Defi n i t i on o f M i t i gat i n g Ev i den ce Un co n s t i tu t i on al . (CR-I; p . 1 7 6 ). On Feb ru ary

1 7 , 2 0 1 4 t h e Co u rtd en i edAp pel l an t ’ s M o t i o n t o h o ldTex . Co d e
o f Cri m i n al Pro cedu re Art . 3 7 .0 1 an dArt . 3 7
. 0 7 1 s ec. 2 (a)Un co ns t i tu ti o n al Wh erei n Pro s ecu t or Hav e Un fet t ered Di s cret i o n To SeekDeat h Pen al t y .(CR-I; p . 1 8 9 ). On Feb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 th e Co u rtd en i edAp p el l an t ’ s M o t i o n t o Ho l d 3 7 .0 7 1
5Un co ns t i tut i o n al ci t i n g Fl o r es v. Jo h n s o n , 2 10 F.3 d 4 5 6 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ). (CR-I; p .

2 0 5 ). On Feb ru ary

1 7 , 2 0 1 4 t h e Co u rtd en i edAp pel l an t ’ s M o t i o n t o Decl are Art
. 3 7 .0 7 1 Faci al l y

Un co n st i tu t io n al fo r Vag u en es s . (CR-I; p . 2 12 ). OnFeb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 th e Co u rtd en i edAp p el lan t ’ s M o t i o n Req u es t i ng In s t ru ct i o n t o th e J u ry Reg ard i n g Res idu al Do ub tas M i t i g at i o n an dOrd er o f t h e Co u rt
. (CR-I; p . 2 4 7 ).

(i i i ) J URY SELECTION PHASE OF TRIAL On Feb ru ary

1 7 , 2 0 1 4 th e ju ry

s el ect i o n p h as e o f t h e t ri al b eg an . (RR-III; p . 4 ). Th e fi rs tp an el o f o n e h u nd redan dtw en t y (1 2 0 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were
s u m m on edt o the 3 5 1 s tDi s t ri ct Co urt , as s i g ned n u m b ers fro m o n e (1 ) t o o n e h u n d red
an d t wen t y

(1 2 0 ). (RR-III; p . 1 -2 7 6 ). On e h u n d redan dn i n et een (1 1 9 ) ju ro rs arri v ed
an d were s eat ed . (RR-III; p . 5 an dp . 1 3 7 ). Ju ro r nu m b er 9 4 fai l edt o ap p ear an da
ca pi a s was i s s u ed . (RR-III; p . 1 3 7 ). Th e p art i es ex cu sedth i rt y -o n e (3 1 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs b y ag reem en t 3 aft er rev i ew o f ju ro r qu es ti o n n ai res . (RR-III; p .4 ; p . 2 2 2 an d p
. 2 2 5 ). Th ereaft er, t h e J u d ge co n du ct edh i s g en eral “ v o i r d i re” o f t h e fi rs tv en i re p an el wh erei n h e ex p l ai n edcert ai n p ri n ci p les o f l aw. 4 (RR-III; p . 4 -5 1 ). Du ri n g t he Co u rt ’ s

3 The parties ex cused by agreement the followingprospective jurors from the panel numbered one (1) to one hundred twenty (120) as follows: 10; 20, 25, 29, 32, 36, 38, 40, 42, 52,57, 60, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 99, 101, 108, 112, 113, 118 and 120. (RRI I I ; p. 4-5 and p. 225). J uror 58, havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on F ebruary 18, 2014 due to a schedule conflict. (RR-II I ; p. 4-5).

4 The Court discussed the followingprinciples of law including but not limited to: 1) the presumption of innocence; 2) that a g rand jury indictment is no evidence of g uilt; 3) that the State has burden of proof and it never shifts to the Defendant; 4) the principle that the State 6g en eral v o i r d ire, fo rt y -s ev en (4 7 ) ad d i t i o n al p ro s pect i ve ju ro rs were ex cu s ed 5 . (RRIII; 2 2 2 -2 2 5 ). Fo rt y -two (4 2 ) ju ro rs were i n s t ru ct edt o ret u rn o n v ari o u s d at es fo r i n d iv i dual v o i r d i re 6 . (RR-III; 2 2 6 -2 2 9 ). OnFeb ru ary 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 , a s eco n dp an el o f
o n e h u n dred an d t wen t y

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were s u m m o n edt o th e 3 5 1 s t

Di s t ri ct Co u rt . (RR-IV; p . 1 -2 3 4 ). Al l o n e h u n d red an d t wen t y (1 2 0 ) s u m

m o n edjuro rs arri v edan dwere s eat edacco rd i n g t o th ei r as s ig n edn u m bers fro m o ne h u n d red t wen t y -o n e (1 2 1 ) t o t wo h u n d redan dfo rt y (2 4 0 ). (RR-IV; p . 1 -2 3 4). In ad d i t i o n , ju ro r n u m

b er 5 8 al s o ap p eared as o rd ered b y t h e Co u rto n Feb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 . (RRIII; 4 -5 an dRR-IV; p . 8 1 ).Th e p art i es ex cu s eds i x t y -ei g h t (6 8 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs b y ag reem en t 7 aft er rev i ew o f ju ro r qu es t i o nn ai res . (RR-IV; p . 8 1 , p . 1 3 2 an dp . 1 8 7 ).
must prove the accused’s g uilt bey ond a reasonable doubt; 5) the accused has the F ifth Amendment Rig ht ag ainst self-incrimination and should he ex ercise that right, no juror may draw an adverse inference there from; 6) ex planation of grand jury

process; and 7) the elements of the indictment. (RR-I I I ; p. 39-52).

5 The Court ex c used (agreed to by both parties) prospective jurors numbered 2-7; 9; 15; 17; 24; 28; 30; 31; 33; 37; 39; 41; 43; 44; 46; 47; 50; 51; 54; 59; 62; 65; 66; 74; 75; 78; 80; 84; 91; 95-97; 100; 106;107; 110;111;115; 116; 119. (RR-I I I ; p. 222 and 225).

6 J ur ors numbered 1, 8, 11, 12 and 13 were told to return for individual voir dire on 2/19/2014 at 8:30 am; J urors 14, 16, and 18 on 2/19/2014 at 1:00 p.m.; J urors 19, 21, 22, 23, and 26 on 2/20/2014 at 8:30 a.m.; J urors 27, 34, 35 at 1:30 p.m. on 2/20/2014; J urors 45, 48; 49; 53, and 55 at 8:30 a.m. on 2/21/2014; J urors 56 and 61 at 1:00 p.m. on 2/21/2014; J urors 64, 73, 76, 77, and 79 at 8:30 a.m. on 2/24/2014; J urors 81, 82 and 83 at 1:00 p.m. on 2/24/2014; J urors 85, 86, 92, 98 and 102 at 8:30 a.m. on 2/25/2014; J urors 103, 104, and 105 at 1:00 p.m. on 2/25/2014; J urors 109, 114, and 117 at 8:30 a.m. on 2/26/2014. (RR-I I I ; 226-229).

7 The parties ex cused by agreement the followingprospective jurors from the second panel numbered one hundred twenty -one (121) to two hundred and forty (240) as follows: 58; 122; 124; 126; 127; 132; 133; 137; 138; 140-148; 150; 152-155; 159; 162; 164; 166; 167; 7Th ereaft er, t h e J ud g e co n du ct edh i s g en eral “ v o i r d i re” o f t h e s eco n dv en ire p an el

wh erei n h e ex p l ai n edg en eral p ri n ci p l es o f cri m in al l aw. 8 (RR-IV; p . 3 4-2 0 1 ). Fo rt y n i n e (4 9) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were i n s t ru ct edt o return o n v ari ou s d at es fo r i n d i v i du al
v o i r. 9 O n Feb ru ary

1 9 , 2 0 1 4 , ei g h tp ro s pect i v e J u ro rs were q u es ti on edi n di v i du al l y . 1 0
171-174; 176; 177; 179; 182; 183; 186; 187; 190-193; 195; 199-201; 204; 205; 208; 209; 213; 214; 216;217; 219-224; 226; 229; 232-234;238; 239. (RR-I V; p. 81, p. 132 and p. 187).

8 The Court discussed the followingprinciples of law including but not limited to: 1) the presumption of innocence; 2) that a g rand jury indictment is no evidence of g uilt; 3) that the State has burden of proof and it never shifts to the Defendant; 4) the principle that the State must prove the accused’s g uilt bey ond a reasonable doubt; 5) the accused has the F ifth Amendment Rig ht ag ainst self-incrimination and should he ex ercise that right, no juror may draw an adverse inference there from; 6) ex planation of grand jury

process; and 7) the elements of the indictment. (RR-I V ; p. 34-201).

9 J ur ors numbered 94 and 121 were told to return on F ebruary 26, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. J urors 123, 124, and 128 were told to return on F ebruary 26, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (RR-I V; p. 202). J urors numbered 129, 130, 131, 134 and 135 were told to return on F ebruary 27, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. J urors 136, 139, and 149 were told to return on F ebruary 27, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (RR-I V; p. 202). J urors numbered 151, 156, 157, 158, and 160 were told to return on F ebruary 28, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. J urors 161, 163, and 165 were told to return on F ebruary 28, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (RR-I V; p. 203). J urors 168, 169, 170, 175 and 178 were told to return on March 3, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-I V; p. 203). J urors 180, 181 and 184 were told to return on March 3, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. J urors 185, 188, 194, 196, and 197 were told to return on March 4, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-I V; p. 203). J urors 198, 202, 203 were told to return on March 4, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (RR-I V; p. 203). J urors 206, 207, 210, 211, and 212 were told to return on March 5, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-I V; p. 203). J urors 225, 227, 228, 231, 236 were told to return on March 6, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-I V; p. 203). J urors 237 and 240 were told to return on March 6, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (RR-I V; p. 203).
1 0 Prospective J urors 1, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18 were questioned individually
. (RR-V; p. 5-211). Prospective Juror 1 (B obby Cox ) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-V; p. 32). Prospective J uror 8 (Charles Kohler) was challeng ed for Cause by

the Defense and it was g ranted. (RR-V; p. 39). Prospective Juror 11 (Tameka Hornsby

) was challeng ed for Cause by the State (denied) and having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-V; p. 85). Prospective J uror 12 (Thomas Ry an) was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-V; p. 88). Prospective J uror 13 (Ang e la Thompson) was ex cused on challeng e for Cause by the State. (RR-V; p. 123). Prospective Juror 8(RR-V; p . 5 -2 1 1 ). OnFeb ru ary 2 0 , s ev en p ro s pect i v e J u ro rs were q u es ti o n ed i n d iv i dual l y . 1 1 (RR-VI; p . 5 -2 8 9 ). OnFeb ru ary 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 s ev en (7 ) p ro s p ect i v e J u ro rs were q u es ti o n ed i n d i vi du al l y . 1 2 OnFeb ru ary 2 4 , 2 0 1 4, ei g h t(8 ) p ro s p ect i v e J u ro rs were q u es ti o n ed i n d i vi du al l y . 1 3 (RR-VIII; p . 3 -2 7 6 ). On Feb ru ary 2 5 , 2 0 1 4 , 14 (Aaron Villarreal) was ex cused on challeng e for Cause by the State. (RR-V; 128). Prospective J uror 16 (Ang e la B urroughs) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-V; p. 175). Prospective J uror 18 (J ohnny

Peek) was ex cused on challeng ed for cause by the Defense. (RR-V; p. 210).

1 1 Prospective J urors 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 34 and 35 were questioned individually
. (RR-VI ; p. 5-289). Prospective Juror 19 (B e njamin Rodrig uez ) was ex c used on challeng ed for Cause by both sides. (RR-VI ; p. 11). Prospective J uror 21 (Priscilla DeGeorg e ) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI ; p. 69). Prospective J uror 22 (Kaitlin Upchurch) was challenged for cause by the State which was granted. (RR-VI ; p. 98). Prospective Juror 23 (Eric Moore) was ex c used on challeng e for Cause bythe Defense. (RRVI ; p. 140). Prospective J uror 27 (Tara L loy d) was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI ; p. 185). Prospective J uror 34 (David B lanchard) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI ; p. 223). Prospective J uror 35 (Abraham Hernandez ) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI ; p. 259).

1 2 Prospective J urors 45, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56 and 61 were questioned individually
. (RR-VI I ; p. 5-198). Prospective Juror 45 (Michael Aliprando) was ex cused on challeng e for cause by the State. (RR-VI I ; p. 11). Prospective J uror 48 (Christene Anderson) was ex cused by ag reement of both parties. (RR-VII ; p. 14). Prospective J uror 49 (Susan W eckwerth) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI I ; p. 62). Prospective J uror 53 (Julie Coe-B ohannon) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI I ; p. 106). Prospective J uror 55 (Rose B erlang a) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI I ; p. 147). Prospective J urors 56 (J a y Seay ) and 61(Marc Soriano) were ex cused by ag reement. (RR-VI I ; p. 152 and p. 178).

1 3 Prospective J urors 64, 73, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, and 83 were questioned individually
. (RR-VI I I ; p. 5-249). Prospective Juror 64 (Naomi Guz man) was ex cused by ag reement. (RRVI I I ; p. 6). Prospective J uror 73 (Darlena Gregg s) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VII I ; p. 44). Prospective J uror 76 (Henrietta Cavanaugh) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. 9s ev en (7 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were q u es t io n edi nd i vi du al l y . 1 4 (RR-IX; p . 3 -1 5 8 ). On

Feb ru ary 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 , n i n e (9 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were q u es t i o nedi n d i v i du al l y . 1 5 (RRX; p . 3 -2 8 8 ). OnFeb ru ary 2 7 , 2 0 14 , n i n e (9 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were q u es t i o n ed i n d iv i dual l y . 1 6 (RR-XI; p . 4 -3 3 5 ). OnFeb ru ary 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 , ei g ht(8 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs (RR-VI I I ; p. 89). Prospective J uror 77 (W illiam Hered) was ex cused over objection based on the State’s Challeng e for Cause. (RR-VI I I ; p. 121). Prospective J uror 79 (Kelly Kildart) was ex cused for Cause on Motions of both parties. (RR-VI I I ; p. 165). Prospective J uror 82 (Caroly n Hale) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-VI I I ; p. 208). Prospective Juror 83 (Olg a Vasquez ) was ex cused for Cause on Motion of the Defense. (RR-VI I I ; p. 248).

1 4 Prospective J urors 85, 92, 98, 102, 103, 104 and 105. (RR-I X; p. 3-158). Prospective J uror 85 (L isa L eB lanc) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-IX; p. 102). Prospective Juror 92 (Thomas B erwick)was ex cused by ag reement of both parties. (RR-I X; p. 5). Prospective Juror 98 (L inda Hendrickson) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-I X; p. 58-59). Prospective J uror 102 (Scott Huff). (RR-I X; p. 134). Prospective Juror 103(J oan B oling broke) was ex cused for Cause on Motion of Defense. (RR-I X; p. 157). Prospective Juror 104 (J essica J ackson) was ex cused by

ag reement of both parties. (RR-I X; p. 5). Prospective Juror 105 (J ohn J ones) was ex cused by

ag reement of both parties. (RR-I X; p. 5).
1 5 Prospective J urors 94, 109, 114, 117, 121, 123, 124, 128 and 225 were questioned individually . (RR-X; p. 3-261). Prospective Juror 94 (Kermit Stephens) was ex cused by the parties by ag reement. (RR-X; p. 129). Prospective J uror 109 (Ju a

nice Colwell) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-X; p. 60). Prospective J uror 114 (Omar Khan) was ex c used by ag reement. (RR-X; p. 66-67). Prospective J uror 117 (Tamara Scott) having

qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-X; p. 123). Prospective Juror 121(L asonya Taylor) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-X; p. 170). Prospective J uror 124 (Visothik Chan) was ex cused by

ag reement. (RR-X; p. 218). Prospective J uror 128 (Kirk Nadler) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-X; p. 259). Prospective J uror 225 (Mechelle May n e s) having

qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-X; p. 209).

1 6 Prospective J urors 129, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 139, 149, and 225 were questioned individually . (RR-XI ; p. 4-302). Prospective Juror 129 (J eanee W e lls) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI ; p. 50). 1 0were q u es t i o nedi n d i v i du al l y . 1 7 (RR-XII; p . 3 -1 5 5 ). OnM arch 3 , 2 0 1 4, n i n e (9 )

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were q u es t i o n ed i n d i v i du al l y . 1 8 (RR-XIII; p . 3 -2 7 3 ). OnM arch 4 ,

Prospective J uror 130 (F rances B aldwin) was ex cused on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RRXI ; p. 86). Prospective J uror 131 (Deidre Richards) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI ; p. 136). Prospective J uror 134 (Glenn Price) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI ; p. 176). Prospective Juror 135 (Gay nell W atkins) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI ; p. 225). Prospective J uror 136 (J ames Reed) was ex c used on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RR-XI ; p. 271). Prospective J uror 139 (Roberto Martinez ) having q

u alified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI ; p. 296). Prospective J uror 149 (David B ankus) was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-XI ; p. 297). Prospective Juror 225 (Shannon Thomason) was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-XI ; p. 302).
1 7 Prospective J urors 151, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163 and 165 were questioned individually . (RR-XI I ; p. 3-155). Prospective Juror 151 (Alecia Davis) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI I ; p. 52). Prospective J uror 156 (Simone Elder) was ex cused on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RR-XI I ; p. 55). Prospective J uror 157 (Robert W eidenmeyer) was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-XI I ; p. 58). Prospective J uror 158 (Gloria McGlothen) was ex c used based on an ag e ex emption. (RR-XI I ; p. 62). Prospective J uror 160 (Kimberly Hedman) was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-XI I ; p. 68). Prospective J uror 161(Rashid Simmons)was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-XI I ; p. 99). Prospective J uror 163 (B arbara L owry

) was ex cused on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RR-XI I ; p. 96). Prospective J uror 165 (Kathleen Daniel) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI I ; p. 134).

1 8 Prospective J urors 168, 169, 170, 175, 178, 180, 181, 184, and 228. (RR-XI I I ; p. 3-245). Prospective Juror 168 (J ames Tullos) was ex c used on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RR-XI I I ; p. 10). Prospective J uror 169 (Rita Townsley ) was ex cused by

ag reement. (RR-XI I I ; p. 10). Prospective Juror 170 (Demond Stanley ) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI I I ; p. 47). Prospective J uror 175 (Ang ela B roussard ) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI I I ; p. 100). Prospective Juror 178 (Gerard L ee) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI I I ; p. 68). Prospective J uror 180 (Maru Stogner) was ex cused on Motion of the State for Cause. (RR-XI I I ; p. 207). Prospective J uror 181 (Eliz a beth J enning s) was ex cused on Motion of the State for Cause. (RR-XII I ; p. 208). Prospective Juror 184 (David Murff) having

qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RRXI I I ; p. 245). Prospective J uror 228 (Cy nthia Heldring ) was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-XI I I ; p. 144). 1 12 0 1 4 , el ev en (1 1) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were q u es t i o nedi n di v i du al l y . 1 9 (RR-XIV; p . 3
-

3 9 7 ). OnM arch 5 , 2 0 1 4 , ei g ht (8 ) p ro s p ect iv e juro rs were q ues t i o n ed i n d iv i dual l y . 2 0 (RR-XV; p . 3 -2 8 4 ). OnM arch 6 , 2 01 4 , a t h i rd p an el o f s i x t y fo u r (6 4 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs were s u m m o n edt o t h e 3 5 1 s tDi s t ri ctCo u rt . (RR-XVI; p . 3 -1 6 0 ). Al l s i x t y -fo u r (6 4 ) s u m

m o n edjuro rs arri v edan dwere s eat edacco rd in g t o thei r

1 9 Prospective J urors 185, 188, 196, 197, 198, 202, 203, 215, 231, 236 and 240 were questioned individually . (RR-XIV; p. 3-397). Prospective Juror 185 (L uann Hayes) was ex cused on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RR-XI V; p. 46). Prospective Juror 188 (Demetria Thomas) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RRXIV; p. 90). Prospective Juror 196 (Russell Rice) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI V; p. 141). Prospective Juror 197 (Robert F inley ) was ex cused on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RR-XI V ; p. 169). Prospective J ur or 198 (David Grimes) having

qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XIV; p. 222 ). Prospective Juror 202 (Michael Yolland) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI V; p. 311). Prospective Juror 203 (Cy nthia Martinez ) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XIV; p. 271). Prospective Juror 215 (Allison Hall) was ex cused by ag reement. (RRXIV; p. 171). Prospective Juror 231 (L inda Carraway ) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XI V; p. 366). Prospective Juror 236 (I rasema Torres) was ex cused on Motion of the State for Cause. (RR-XI V; p. 389). Prospective Juror 240 (Gary Prez binowski) was ex cused by ag reement. (RR-XI

V; p. 396).

2 0 Prospective J urors 194, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 218, and 227 were questioned individually . (RR-XV; p. 3-284). Prospective Juror 194 (J hett Nelson) was ex c used on Motion of the State for Cause. (RR-XV; p. 239). Prospective J uror 206 (Georg e Card) was ex cused on Motion of the Defense for Cause. (RR-XV; p. 94). Prospective J uror 207 (Gwendoly

n Deason) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XV; p. 68). Prospective Juror 210 (Christina Dakus)having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XV; p. 148). Prospective J uror 211 (Michael Ducharme) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XV; p. 192). Prospective Juror 212 (Doug las Davis) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XV; p. 221). Prospective J uror 218 (David Valdez ) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XV; p. 273). Prospective J uror 227 (Deborah Yahner) was excused by ag reement. (RR-XV; p. 282). 1 2as s i g n edn u m b ers fro m two h u nd redan dfo rt y o ne (2 4 1 ) t o th ree h u n d redan dth ree
an d fi v e (3 0 5 ). (RR-XVI; p . 3 -1 6 0 ). Th e p art i es ex cu s edfo rt y -t wo (4 2 ) p ro sp ect i v e ju ro rs b y ag reem en t , aft er rev i ew o f th e ju ro r ques t i o n nai res . 2 1 (RR-XVI; p . 1 6 8 ). Th ereaft er, t h e J ud g e co n du ct edh i s g en eral “ v o i r d i re” o f t h e t h i rdv en i re p an el wh erei n h e ex p l ai n edcert ai n p ri n ci p les o f l aw. 2 2 (RR-XVI; p . 1 2 -1 5 6 ). Twen t y -t wo (2 2 ) p ro s p ect i v e juro rs were i ns t ru ct edt o ret u rn o n v ari o u s d at es fo r i n d i v i du al
v o i r. 2 3 (RR-XVI; p . 1 57 ). On M arch 7 , 2 0 1 4 s i x p ro sp ect i v e ju ro rs were q u es t i o n ed i n d iv i dual l y . 2 4 (RR-XVII; p . 3 -1 4 5 ). Ap p el l an ten t ereda p l ea o f g u i lt y upo n

2 1 Prospective J urors numbered 189, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 264, 266, 267, 270, 271, 272, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285, 287, 288, 293, 294, 295, 301 and 303 were ex cused by ag reement of the parties. (RR-XVI ; p. 3; p. 118 and p. 156).

2 2 The Court discussed the followingprinciples of law including but not limited to: 1) the presumption of innocence; 2) that a g rand jury indictment is no evidence of g uilt; 3) that the State has burden of proof and it never shifts to the Defendant; 4) the principle that the State must prove the accused’s g uilt bey ond a reasonable doubt; 5) the accused has the F ifth Amendment Rig ht ag ainst self-incrimination and should he ex ercise that right, no juror may draw an adverse inference there from; 6) ex planation of grand jury

process; and 7) the elements of the indictment. (RR-XVI ; p. 12-156).

2 3 Prospective J urors numbered 246, 257, 262, 263, 265 and 268 were told to return on March 7, at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XVI ; p. 157). Prospective Jurors 269, 274, 275, 283, 286 and 289 were told to return on March 7, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (RR-I V; p. 157). Prospective Jurors numbered 290, 291, 292, 297, 298 and 299 were told to return on March 10, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XVI ; p. 157). Prospective Jurors 300, 302, 304 and 305 were told to return on March 10, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (RR-XVI ; p. 157).

2 4 Prospective jurors 246 257, 262, 263, 265 and 268 were questioned individually
. Prospective J uror 246 (L

uman B urr) having

qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XVI I ; p. 32-33). Prospective Juror 257 (Henry Sustaita) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XVI I ; p. 60 ). Prospective J uror 262 (J ohn Murphy ) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on

1 3arrai g n m en to u t s i d e t h e p res en ce o f t h e ju ry o n M arch 7 , 2 0 1 4 . (RR-XVII; p . 1 4 6
-

1 4 8 ). Th ereaft er, t h e Co urt h av i n g qu al i fi edfi ft y (5 0 ) p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs , reces s ed
u n t il M arch 2 4 , 2 0 1 4. (RR-XVII; p . 1 4 9 ). OnM arch 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 , th e p an el o f p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs retu rn edt o th e Co u rt . (RR-XVIII; p . 5 ). Th e Co u rti nq u iredo f t h e p an el wh et h er an y ci rcu m s t an ces h adch an g eds i nce t he t h ei r l as t ap pearan ce i n Co u rt , “ affect i n g th ei r ab i l i ty t o t ak e t h e o at h an d fo l l o w the l aw.” 2 5 (RR-XVIII; p . 5 ). Th e Co u rtp rep ared an d p res en t eda p r o p o s ed ch ar g e fo r rev i ew b y

th e p art i es . (RR-XVIII; p . 4 ). Th e d efen s e req u es t edth e “ fai l u re t o t es t i fy ” i n s t ru ct i o n b e
rem ov edfro m

th e p ro p os edch arg e (wh i ch was g ran ted ). (RR-XVIII; p . 3 -4 ). Bo th
s i d es ex erci s ed t h ei r p erem p t o ry ch al l en g es an da ju ry o f twel v e (an dtwo al t ern at es )
were s w o rni n an ds eat ed
. 2 6 (RR-XVIII; p . 2 6 an dRR-XIX; p . 3 ). March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XVI I ; p. 92). Prospective J uror 263 (Judith Z alewski) was ex c used by

ag reement of the parties. (RR-XVI I ; p. 93). Prospective J uror 265 (Kevin Kinlaw) havingqualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XVI I ; p. 115). Prospective Juror 268 (Erika Attleson) having qualified to serve, was instructed to return on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (RR-XVI I ; p. 143).

2 5 The Court re-questioned panel members (re-numbered from 1-50) 2, 14, 24 and 43. (RR-XVI I I ; p. 7-14). It was determined that prospective juror number 2 (Tameka Hornsby

previously

numbered prospective juror 11)who was awaiting cancer tests (tumor benig n ) remained qualified. (RR-XVII I ; p. 7). Prospective juror 14 (L isa L eB lanc-previously numbered prospective juror 85) who’s mother was being treated for cancer was ex cused bythe Court. (RRXVI I I ; p. 12); prospective juror 24 (Gay nelle W atkins-previously numbered prospective juror 135)who was on medication for g o ut was ex cused by ag reement of the parties. (RR-XVII I ; p. 14); prospective juror (David Valdez -previously numbered prospective juror 218) who had accepted a new job in W ashing ton D.C., remained qualified. (RR-XVII I ; p. 15).

2 6 Prospective J urors: 7 (Abraham Hernandez -previously

prospective juror numbered 35); 9 (Ju lie B ohannon- previously prospective juror numbered 53); 11 (Darlene 1 4(i v ) GUILT/INNOCENCE PHASE OF TRIAL

Ap p el l an twas arrai g nedi n th e p res en ce o f t h e jury an den t ered ap l ea o

f g u i lt y . ( RR-XIX; p . 3 -4 ). Th e Co u rtreadthe ju ry ch arg e t o th e ju ry , wh erei n th e
o n l y v erd i cto p t i on was t o fi ndAp pel l an tg ui l t y o f Cap i t al M u rd er. (RR-XIX; p . 5 ). Aft er d el i b erat i on s , th e ju ry retu rn eda v erd i ctfi n d i n g Ap p el l an t g u i lt yo f Cap i t al M urd er. (RR-XIX; p . 7 ).

(v ) PUNISHM ENT PHASE OF TRIAL On M arch 2 4, 2 0 1 4 b efo re h eari n g ev i d en ce, b o t h s i d es p res en t edo p en i n g
s t at em en treg ard i n g th e p u n i s h m en tp h as e o f t h e t ri al . (RR-XX; p . 3 -2 2 ). Fro m M arch 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 t o M arch 31 , 2 0 1 4 t h e St at e cal l edth i rt y -t wo (3 2) wi t nes s es o n p u n i s h m en t . (RR-XX-XV). Li n d a Ho l l y, was a fri en d o f S

h er r y W h i t e’s wh o wo rk edwi t h h er b ar at th e Sweet wat er Co u n t ry

Cl ub i n th e s n ackb ar. (RR-XX; p . 2 5 -2 6). On Fri d ay M ay 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 , th ey

were b o t h s ch edu l edt o wo rk : Li n da t h e m o rn in g s h i ft(fro m 8 : 0 0 a.m . t o
Greg g s previously

prospective juror numbered 73); 12 (Henrietta Cavanaug h- previously prospective juror numbered 76); 16 (Scott Huff- previously prospective juror numbered 102); 18 (Tamara Scott- previously prospective juror numbered 117); 23 (Glenn Price- previously prospective juror numbered 134); 25 (Roberto Martinez - previously prospective juror numbered 139); 26 (Alecia Davis- previously prospective juror numbered- 151); 32 (David Murff previously

prospective juror numbered 184); 35 (Russell Rice- previously prospective juror numbered 196); and 38 (Cy nthia Martinez - previously prospective juror numbered 203) were seated as jurors. (RR-XVII I ; p. 26). Prospective Jurors 39 (Gwendoly n Deason- previously prospective juror numbered 207) and 40 (Christina Dakus- previously prospective juror numbered 210) were seated as alternates. (RR-XVI I I ; p. 26). 1 53 : 0 0 p .m .) an dSh erryWh it e t h e ev en i n g s h i ft(fro m 3 : 0 0 p .m . t o 8 :0 0 p . m .). (RRXX; p . 2 7 -2 8 ). Sh erryWh i t e, wh o was n o rm al ly p ro m p tan drel i ab l e, fai l edt o ap pear fo r wo rkat3 : 0 0 p .m . t o rel i ev e Li n d a Ho l l y . (RR-XX; p . 2 7 -2 8 ). Li n d a cal l edSh erryWh i t e s ever a l t i mes o n h er cel l p h o n e an dl eftm es s ag es o n v o i ce m ai l , b u t recei v edn o return cal l
. (RR-XX; p . 2 7 -2 8 ). Co n s eq u en tl y , s h e h adt o wo rka d o ub l e s h i ft . (RR-XX; p. 2 7 -2 8 ). Th e n ex td ay , s h e s po k e t o Pat ri ci a Ro bi n s o n (Sh erry ’ s co u s i n ) an dl earn edth atSh erryWh i t e h adb een fo u n d m u rd ered i n h er h o m e. (RR-XX; p . 3 2 -3 5 ). A co u s i n Jo h n Eld

er (al o n g wi t h p o l ice o ffi cer Tr aci S ea l s ) fo u n dth e b o d i es
o f Sh erryWh i t e an dh er s o n , Ky l e Lav erg e (al s o m u rd ered ) i n s i d e th ei r h o m e at 8 9 1 4 Ferd i n an dSt ., Ho u s t o n , Tex as . (RR-XX; p . 4 1 ). Th e b o di es were fo u n daro u n d
n o o n , o n Satu rd ay , M ay 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 ataro un d n o on . (RR-XX; p . 4 1 an dp . 6 4). Du ri n g t h e s cen e i n v es t i g at io n, Ap p el l an t(wh o ap p eared o ut s i d e atth e h o u s e was i d en t i fi ed
as Sh erry ’ s b o y

fri en d ). (RR-XX; p . 8 9 ). Ap p el l an twas tran s p o rt edb y Offi cer Jo s e Ga r ci a t o th e h o m i ci d e d i v i s i on fo r ques t i o n i ng . (RR-XX; p . 8 9 ). Offi cer S h er i d a n La ng f o rd , (HPD Cri m e Scen e Un ito ffi cer) d es cri b edth e
ev id en ce g at h eri n g p ro ces s atth e cri m e s cen e. (RR-XX; p . 9 1-9 5 ). Offi cer Lan g fo rd p rep ared a s cen e d i ag ram , t o o k p h o t o g rap h s an da v i d eo (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t1 6 8 ) o f t h e
s cen e at8 9 14 Ferd i n an d . (RR-XX; p . 9 7). St at e’ s Ex h i b i t s 2 6-1 4 4 (p ho t o g rap h s )
1 6were ad m i t tedi nt o ev i d en ce o v er d efen se o b ject i o n . 2 7 (RR-XX; p . 1 0 7 ). Offi cer Lan g fo rdreco rd edthe s eri al n u m b er (St at e’ s St at e’ s Ex h i bi t1 0 9 ) co rres p on d i n g t o a
m i s s in g cam era. (RR-XX; p . 1 35 ). Las t l y , s h e g av e “ o p i n i on s ” reg ard i n g fo ren s i c
as p ect s o f t h e ev i d en ce at th e cri m e s cen e s u ch as b l o o ds p at t er, ab s en ce o f s h el l
cas i n g s, reco v ery

o f s pen tp ro

ject i l e (b u l l et -St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 8 9 ) an db u l l ets t ri k e i n s i d e a p il l o w(St at e’ s Ex hi b i t8 8 ); p o s si b l e fi n g er p ri n t s ; b l o odan dp o ss i b l e DNA
s am p l es an dth e p h y si cal l o cat i o n o f t h e b od i es an d wo u n dl o cat i on s 2 8 . (RR-XX; p . 1 0 6 -1 0 7 ; p . 1 1 8; p . 1 2 1 ; p . 1 3 9 an dp . 1 5 9 ). Ho m i ci d e Det ect iv e Ma th ew Br a d y co n du ct eda s earch o f an ap art m en t l o cat edat9 8 9 8 Un i t edDri ve (Ap art m en tNu m b er 9 0 6 ) wi t h t h e co n s en to f th e
o wn er, Vi cky Al exa n d

er . 2 9 (RR-XXI; p . 1 5 ). Ph o t og rap h s o f t he s cen e (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t s 1 6 9-1 78 ) an d it em s reco v ered were ad m i t t edwi th o uto b ject io n . (RR-XXI; p . 1 6 ). A cam era (d ep i ct edi n St at e’ s Ex h i b it 1 79 ) was reco v ered fro m a b ag i n th e b ed ro o m o ccup i edb y

Ap p el l an t . (RR-XXI; p . 1 9 ). Al so , a recei p t(d ep i ct edi n St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 1 8 0 ) fo r t h e cam era i n th e n am e o f Sh erryWh i t e was al so fo u n di n

2 7 The defense objected on g rounds of relevance. (RR-XX; p. 107).

2 8 Kyle L averg e’s body was found just inside the front door of the house in the living room. (RR-XX-; p. 118). Sherry W h ite’s body

was found inside the bathroom. (RR-XX; p. 139).
2 9 Detective B rady

had received information that Appellant had been stay ing in a room within Apartment 906. Appellant’s sister, Vicky Alex ander rented Apartment 906 and lived their with her daughter Ashley B arbideauxand J asmine Norton. (RR-XXI ; p. 80).

1 7t h e s am e b ag . (RR-XXI; p . 1 9 ). St at e’ s Ex h i b i t s 1 7 9 (p h o t o o f cam era) an d1 8 0

(p h o t o o f recei p t ) were ad m i t t edi n t o ev i d en ce wi t h ou to bject i o n . (RR-XXI; p . 2 5 ). Las t l y , tw o s u i t cas es b el iev edt o b el o n g t o Ap p el l an t were s ei zed . (RR-XXI; p . 2 0 ). Ap p el l an tg av e h is co n s en tt o s earch th e b ag s. (RR-XXI; p . 2 2-2 3 ). Th e b ag s
co nt ai n ed cl o t h i n g , t o i l et ri es an da cel l p h o n e. (RR-XXI; p . 2 3 ). Ho u st on Po l i ce Offi cer J u s t i n Gal i n d o co n duct eda fo ren s i c an al y s i s o f t h e s ei zedcam era (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t1 7 9 ). (RR-XXI; p . 3 2 -3 4 ). He d o wn l oad ed4 3 1 d i g i t al i m ag es fro m th e
cam era. (RR-XXI; p . 3 2 -3 4 ). Ten (1 0 ) o f t h o s e i m ag es (i d en t i fi edas St at e’ s Ex h i b i ts 1 8 3 -1 9 2 ) en l arg ed fo r l at er i d en t i fi cat i o n were ad m i t t edi n to ev i d en ce wi th o u t
o b ject i o n . (RR-XXI; p . 3 4 ). Ho u s t o n p o l i ce o ffi cer J. T. S mi th co n du ct eda fo ren s ic an al y s is o f a Cri ck et cel l p h o ne o wn edan d co n sen tedt o b y Vi ck i Al ex an d er. (RR-XXI; p . 4 2 -4 3 ). St at e’ s Ex h i b i t s 1 9 3-1 96 (wri t ten co n s en tfo rm ; p h o t o o f cri ck etp h o n e an dp h ot o o f
rev o l v er fro m

p h o n e) were ad m i t t edwi th o u to b ject i o n . (RR-XXI; p . 4 0 ). A s h l ey Ba r bi dea ux, Ap p el l an t ’ s n i ece was cl o s e t o Sh erryWh i t e an dKy l e Lav erg e. (RR-XXI; p . 4 4 ). Aro u n d M arch 2 0 1 1 , Ap p el l an t was rel eas edfro m p ri s on
an d t h ere was a p art y o n h i s b eh al f at t en d edt o b y h i s fam il y

an d Sh erryWh i t e. (RRXXI; p . 4 4-4 6 ). M s . Barb i d eau x o b s erv edSh erry Wh i t e an dAp p el l an ti n t eract i n g du ri n g t he p art y . (RR-XXI; p . 4 4 -4 6). Sh o rt l y aft erward s th ey

b eg an d at i n g . (RR1 8XXI; p . 4 5). Aro u ndth e m i d dl e o f Ap ri l 2 0 1 1, As h l ey Barb i d eau x fo u n da k i t ch en kn i fe wi t h a b ro wn h an dl e u nd er t h e d ri v er’ s s eato f h er M o m ’ s car. (RR-XXI; p . 4 9 ). OnFri d ay M ay

2 0 , 2 01 1 , Ap p el l an tdro v e As h l ey ’ s m o t h er t o wo rk i n h er car. (RR-XXI; p . 5 5 ). Aro u n d1 0 : 0 0 a.m ., Ap p el lan t ret u rn edwi t h h er M o m ’ s car. (RRXXI; p . 5 5). As h l ey recal l edAp p el l an t , th atm o rn i ng tri edt o s el l h er t h e cam era (d ep i ct edi n St at e’ s Ex h i b i t1 7 9 )fo r $ 3 0 .0 0
. (RR-XXI; p . 6 4 ). Ja smi n e No r t o n kn ew Ap p el l an th adb een o v er at Sh erryWh i t e’ s h o u s e i n Vi cky ’ s car earl i er i n t he m o rn i n g o f M ay 2 0 , 2 0 1 1. (RR-XXI; p . 8 1 -8 2 ). Ap p el l an t h ads o m e “ cro wn ro y al ” wi t h h im . (RR-XXI. p . 8 2 ). J as m i n e an dAs h l ey ag reed t o g et“ fu ck ed -up” wi t h Ap p el l an t . (RR-XXI. p . 8 2 ). J as m i n e d ro v e wi t h h i m t o Sn ap p y ’ s g ro cerys t o re fo r s o m e “ i ce.” (RR-XXI; p . 8 2 ). Du ri n g t he ri d e Ap p el l an t
as k edJ as m i n e i f s h e kn ew an y b o d y th at wan t edt o b u y

a g un . (RR-XXI; p . 8 4 ). Ch r is t o p h er St u rdi va n t , a h o m i ci d e i n v es t i g at or i n t erv iewedAp p el lan tatth e p o l ice s t at i o n aft er h e was d et ai n edatthe s cen e o n M ay 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 . (RR-XXI; p . 1 38
- 1 4 2 ). Th e i n t erv i ew was reco rd edb y a d i g i t al v i d eo d ev ice, i d en t i fi edas St at e’ s Ex h i b i t1 9 7 , ad m i t t ed i n t o ev i d en ce wi t h ou to b ject i o n an dp ub l i s hedt o th e jury . (RR-XXI; p . 1 4 3 & p . 1 5 1 ). Th e i nt erro g at i o n o f Ap p el l an t b eg an at9 : 4 2 p .m an d
en dedat1 : 4 8 a.m . (RR-XXI; p . 1 4 5 an dSt at e’ s Ex h i bi t1 9 7 ). Ev en tual l y , Ap p el l an t ad m i tt ed to Offi cer St u rd i van tth ath e h adk il l edb o t h Sh erryWh i t e an d Ky l e
1 9Lav erg e. (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t1 9 7 ). Offi cer St u rd iv an tb el i ev edthatth ei r were s u ffi ci en t

co rro b o rat i n g d et ai l s i n Ap p el l an t ’ s co n fes s i o n t o ren d er i tcred i b l e. (RR-XXII; p . 9 -1 0 ). Fi rs t , Ap p el lan tt o l d Offi cer St u rd i v an tthatth e fi rs ts h o tfi red atKy l e Lav erg e was i n t h e b ed ro o m . (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 1 9 7 ). Th i s fact was co rro b orat edb y t h e fi redp ro

ject i l e (reco v ered fro m

i n s i de a p i ll o w) fo un di n t h e b edro o m . (RRXXII; p . 1 1 ). Seco n d, Ap p el l an tm en t i o n eda g las s o f wat er l efto n t h e n i g hts t an d
. (RR-XXII; p . 9 -1 0 ). Th i s fact was co rro b o rat ed b y o b s erv in g a g l as s o f wat er at t h e
s cen e o n a n i g h t s t an di n Sh erryWh i t e’ s b ed ro o m . (RR-XXII; p . 9 -1 0). Th i rd , Ap p el l an tad m i t t ed leav in g h i s wat ch i n th e b at h ro om wh ere Sh erryWh i t e was fo u n d . (Ex h i b i t1 9 7 ). Th i s fact was co rro b o rat edb y th e reco v ery

o f a m an ’ s wat ch
o f s am e m ak e an dd es cri p ti o n as d es cri b edb y Ap p el lan t . (RR-XXII; p . 1 3 ). Fo u rt h , Ap p el l an tcl ai m edt o h av e cal l edSh erryWh i t e aro un d 6 : 0 0 a.m . th e m o rn i ng o f M ay 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 . (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 1 9 7 ). Th i s fact was co rro b o rat ed b y h er an sweri n g
m ach i n e reco rd i n g a t el ep ho n e cal l fro m a n u m ber as s o ci at edwi t h Ap p el l an t(Vi ck i e Al ex an d er’ s ap art m en t ) at6 : 0 2 a.m . o n M ay 2 0, 2 0 11 . (RR-XXII; p . 1 1 ). Ja so n Ol ip h a n t , a CSU wi t h th e Ho u st o n Po l i ce Dep art m en t , co l l ect edan d p h o t o g rap h edb o t h Ap p el lan tan dh i s s h o es 3 0 . (RR-XXII; p . 4 9 -5 0 an dSt at e’ s

3 0 The shoes (Siz e eleven Nike tennis shoes) were admitted into evidence without objection. (RR-XXI I ; p. 57 and State’s Ex hibit 205). 2 0Ex h i b i t s 1 9 8-2 03 ). He al s o rem o v ed (u s i n g a co t t o n s wab an dd i s t i l l edwat er)

p ercei v edb l o o dtran s fer fo u n d o n the s h oes . (RR-XXII; p . 5 7 ). Ch r is t y S mej ka l , a DNA An al y s twi t h th e Harri s Co u n t y In s t i tu t e o f Fo ren s i c Sci en ces , rem o v ed b i o l og i cal m at eri al an d fo rei g n d eb ri s fro m b o t h b o d y ’ s o f Sh erry Wh i t e an dKy l e Lav erg e an ds ub m i t t ed i tt o th e HPD Cri m e l ab . (RR-XXII; p . 7 5
- 7 9 ). Jen n if

er Cl a y , a DNA An al y stwi th th e Ho us t o n Cri m e Lab , creat eda DNA p ro fi l es (fro m

thei r kn o wn b i o lo g i cal m at eri al ) o n b o t h v i ct i m s Sh erryWh i t e an d Ky l e Lav erg e, J o h n El der an dAp p el l an t . (RR-XXII; p . 9 2 -9 3 ). Ap p el l an t was n ot
ex cl u dedas a co n t ri b u t o r t o DNA fo u n du nd er t h e ri g h tfi n g er n ai l o f Sh erryWh i t e,
o n a cel l p h o n e ch arg er l o cat i o n atSh erryWh i t e’ s h o us e, (RR-XXII; p . 1 0 0 ; p . 1 0 2 ). Dr . Lo u is a Fl o r es , was the Harri s Co u n t y Dep u t y M ed i cal Ex am i n er wh o p erfo rm edb o t h au to p s i es o n the v i ct i m s . (RR-XXII; p . 1 3 4 ). Sh e t es t i fi edth atth e
cau s e o f d eat h o f Ky l e Lav erg e was “ m u lt i pl e g u n s h o t wo u n d s .” (RR-XXII; p . 1 7 1
an d St at e’ s Ex h i b it2 0 6 ). Sh e t es t i fi edth at t he cau s e o f d eat h o f Sh erryWh i t e was

“ m ul t i p l e g u n s h o t wo u n d s an dm u lt i p l e s h arp fo rce i n

ju ri es .”(RR-XXIII; p . 8 1 an d St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 2 3 7 ). Ta mmy Reed , a fi rearm s ex am i n er wi t h th e Harri s Co u n t y Fo ren s i c Ex am i n er’ s
o ffi ce, i d en t i fi ed fi v e (5 ) p ro ject i l es (b u ll et s-St at e’ s Ex h i b i t s 9 0 , 2 2 1 , 2 36 , 3 0 4 an d

2 13 1 2 ) as cap ab le o f b ei n g fi redfro m el ev en d ifferen t t y

p es o f h an dg u n s al l o f t h e .3 8 cal i b er cl as s o f fi rearm s. (RR-XXIII; p . 1 1 8 ). Sh e al so t es t i fi edth ats h e h adn o
s u sp ectfi rearm

s ub m i t t edt o h er o n wh i ch t o p erfo rm a “ t es t fi re.” (RR-XXIII; p . 1 1 7 ). Las t l y , th e cri m e s cen e h adn o s h el l cas i n g reco v ered . (RR-XXIII; p . 1 1 9 ). Ro b er t Al i , Ky l e Lav erg e’ s g reat u ncl e, t es ti fi edt o fact thatKy le was at t en d i n g “ av i at i o n m ai n t en an ce” s ch o o l . (RR-XXIII; p . 1 3 3 ). Th e s ch oo l reco rd s were ad m i t tedi nt o ev i d en ce o v er o b ject i o n . 3 1 (RR-XXIII; p . 1 3 3 an dSt at e’ s Ex h ib i t 3 2 4 ). Pa tr i ci a Ro b in s on , co u s i n t o Sh erryWh i te, i d en t i fi edp h o to g rap hs o f Sh erry Wh i t e an dKy l e Lav erg e (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t s 3 2 5 -3 27 ) ad m i t t edi n t o ev i d en ce wi t h o u t
o b ject i o n . (RR-XXIII; p . 1 45 ). Ov er o b ject io n , s h e t es t i fi edth atb o t h v ict i m s were g o o dp eo p l e an dh ow d i ffi cu l ti th as b een d eal i n g wi t h t h ei r d eat h s . (RR-XXIII; p .1 4 8 ). Vi cky Al exa n der , Sh erryWh i t e’ s b es tfri en d (Ap pel l an t ’ s h al f-s i s t er 3 2 ) d es cri b ed Ap p el l an tco m i n g t o l i v e wi t h h er i n M arch o f 2 0 1 1 , up o n h i s rel eas e fro m p ri s o n . (RR-XXIII; p . 1 4 7 -1 4 8 ). Ap p el l an tm etSh erryWh i t e atVi cky Al ex an d er’ s ap art m en tdu ri n g a p art y

arran g edb y

h i s d au gh t er. (RR-XXIII; p . 1 5 0). Vi cky

3 1 Trial counsel’s objections was “to relevancy , hearsay and improper victim information.” (RR-XXI I I ; p. 133).

3 2 Appellant and Vicky Alex ander had the same father but different mothers.(RRXXI I I ; p. 192). 2 2p u rp o rt ed ly

warn ed Sh erryth atAp p el l an th ada “ p ro bl em ” wi t h wo m en . (RR-XXIII; p . 1 5 2 ). In Ap ri l 2 0 1 1 , Ap pel l an tt o l dVi cky th ath e l o v edSh erryan dh e “ wi s h edh e
co ul dm arryh er.” (RR-XXIII; p . 1 5 5 ). Vi cky d es cri b edAp p el l an t as v ery

“ co n tro l l in g , p ro t ect iv e, p o s s es s i v e an djeal o u s o v er Sh erry .” (RR-XXIII; p . 1 5 5
- 1 5 6 ). Ap pro x i m at el y

two week s b efo re t h e m

u rd er, Vi cky

b el iev edSh errywas
en di n g h er rel at i o n s h i p wi th Ap p el l an t . (RR-XXXIII; p . 1 57 ). Th e weeko f M ay 8 , 2 0 1 1 , Ap p el l an twen tt o Po rtArt h u r an d s t ay edwi t h h is d au g ht er, Lo rrai n e. (RRXXIII; p . 1 5 9 -1 6 0 ). OnSu n day M ay 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 , Sh erry Wh it e p i ck edAp p el l an tup at t h e b u s s t at i o n up on h i s retu rn fro m Po rtArt h u r. (RR-XXIII; p . 1 6 1). He s t ay edwi t h Sh erryath er h o u s e u n t i l Th u rs day M ay 1 9 , 2 0 1 4 .(RR-XXIII; p . 1 6 2 ). On Fri d ay , M ay 2 0, 2 0 1 1 , Ap p el l an tdro v e Vi cky t o wo rk . (RR-XXIII; p . 1 62 ). Sh erryt o l d Vi cky s h e h adm ad e s ecret p l an s t o g o “ g am bl i n g ” o u to f t own th atev en i n g. (RRXXIII; p . 1 6 3 ). When Vi cky g o t o ff wo rks h e co u l d n o t reach Sh erry b y t el ep h o n e. (RR-XXXIII; p . 1 6 9 ). Th atev en i n g s h e an dAp p el l an t wen tt o a g am e ro om . (RRXXIII; p . 1 7 6 ). OnSatu rd ay M ay 2 1, 2 0 11 , Vi cky

dro v e (wi t h Ap p el l an t ) o v er t o Sh erryWh i te’ s h o us e an dl earn eds h e an dKy le h adb een m u rd ered . (RR-XXXIII; p . 1 8 1 ). Gl or ia Fr eema n , Ap p el l an t ’ s fi rs t wi fe, b eg an d at i n g h i m wh en s h e was fi ft een (1 5 ) an dh e was s ev en t een (1 7 ). (RR-XXIV; p . 3 5 ). M s . Freem an kn ew t h at
2 3Ap p el l an t ’ s s i s ter (St ark l yn) h adp rev i o u sl y d i ed . (RR-XXIV; p . 3 8 ). Ap p el l an tan d M s. Freem an n am edth ei r fi rs tb o rn d au g h t er St ark l y n , aft er h is d eceas eds i s t er. (RRXXIV; p . 3 8 -3 9 ). Aft er Hi g h Sch o o l, Ap p el l an tjo i n edth e m ari n es an d t h ey m o v ed t o Cam p Leju en e, No rt h Caro l i n a. (RR-XXIV; p . 4 0-4 1 ). Whi l e l i vi n g atCam p Leju en e, Ap p el l an t b eg an p hy s ical l y ab u si n g M s . Freem an . (RR-XXIV; p . 4 1 ). Th ei r
s eco n dch i l d , La Do n n a b orn p re-m atu rel y , d i edwh en s h e was ei g h t een m o n t h s o l d
. (RR-XXIV; p . 4 4 ). Sh ort ly b efo re h er d eat h , M s . Freem an s ep arat edfro m Ap p el l an t
an d m o v edb ackt o l i v e wi th h er m ot h er i n Po rt Art h u r, Tex as . (RR-XXIV; p . 4 4 -4 5
an d p . 4 8 ). Ma r k McEl va n

y , a Dep u t y

Sh eri ff wi t h Harri s Co u n ty , i d en ti fi ed fi n g er p ri n t s
o f Ap p el l an tl in k i n g h i m

t o ju d g m en tan d s en t en ces i n h i s n am e (St at e’ s Ex h i b i t ’ s 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 3 5 , 3 36 , 3 3 7 , 3 3 9 , 3 4 0 , 3 4 1 , 3 4 2-ad m i t t edwi t h o u t Ob ject i o n. 3 3 ). (RR-XXIV; p . 6 8 ). Th e ju d g m en tan ds en t en ces were p ub li s h edt o th e ju ry as fo l l o ws : Sty l e o f Ca se & Ex hi bi t Offens e & Da te Sentence & Da te

3 3 State’s Ex hibits 331, 331A, 332 were admitted over objection, citing S amudio v. State , 648 S.W
. 2d 312 (Tex . Crim. App. 1983).(RR-XXIV; p. 11 and p. 69). The Court reviewed the Harris County District Clerk’s Record in Cause Number 351037, specifically an ag reement to stipulate and judicial confession and found that Appellant did in fact affirmatively waive his right to a jury

trial. (RR-XXVI ; p. 128 and Court Ex hibit 2).

2 4St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 2 9 -Cau s e

Nu m b er 8 0 -CRS-1 8 0 1 2 ; Sup eri o r Co u rt ; Co u n t y o f On s l o w; St a t e o

f No r th Ca r ol i na v. Jef

f r ey Kei th Pr evo st Larcen y an dPo s ses s i o n o f St o l enPro p ert y 0 8/ 3 1 / 1 9 8 0 60 day s Jail in Jail11/03/1930

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 3 1 - In t he 2 6 3 Di s t ri ct Co u rto f Harri s Co u n t y , Tex as ; Cau s e 3 5 1 0 3 7 ; St a t e o

f Texa s v. Jef

f r ey Kei th Pr evo st ; Bu rg l ary o f a Bu i l d i n g redu cedt o Cri m i n al Tres p as s - 0 2 / 26 / 1 9 8 2 1 2 0 d ay s i n J ai l

0 3 /0 1 / 1 9 8 2

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 3 3 -In th e Co u n t y Co u rto f J effers o n Co u n t y ; Cau se Nu m

b er 1 1 1 83 1 ; St a t e o

f Texa s v. Jef f er y Kei th Pr evo s t ; Un l awfu l ly Carry in g a W eap o n - 0 3 /1 2 /1 9 8 4 ; 8 d ay s i n J ai l

0 5 /0 7 / 1 9 8 4

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 3 4 -In th e Co u n t y Co u rto f J effers o n Co u n t y ; Cau se Nu m

b er 1 1 8 01 6 ; St a t e o

f Texa s v. Jef f er y Kei th Pr evo s t ; As s au l t -0 1 / 1 6/ 1 9 8 5 3 0 d ay s i n J ai l0 4 /0 6 / 1 9 8 7

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 3 5 - TDC Pen Pack etco n t ai n i n g ; J u d gm en tAd

j u d icat i o n Gu i lt ; Cau s e 4 4 7 03 ; Di s t ri ctCo u rto f J effers o n Co u n t y ; St a t e o

f Texa s v. Jef f er y Kei th Pr evo s t Th eft -0 8 / 3 0 / 1 9 86 ; 3 y ears TDC-0 9/ 0 8 / 1 9 8 7

2 5St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 3 6 - TDC

Pen Pack etco n t ai n i n g ; J u d gm en t ; Cau s e Nu m

b er 5 0 6 94 ; Di s t ri ctCo u rto f J effers o n Co u n ty ; St at e o f Texa s v. Jef

f er y Kei th Pr evo st Bu rg l ary o f a Bu i l d i n g 0 6/ 2 8 / 1 9 8 8; 5 y ears TDC-0 8/ 2 9 / 1 9 8 8

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 3 7
- Cri m in al In fo rm at i o n ; ch arg i n g i n th e Co un t y Co u rto f J effers o n Co u n t y ; Cau se Nu m

b er 1 4 4 03 5 ; St a t e o

f Texa s v. Jef f er y Kei th Pr evo s t ; Cri m i n al Tres pas s 0 8/ 1 5 / 1 9 8 9; 1 5 d ay s i n jai l

0 8 /3 1 / 1 9 8 9

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 3 9 - TDC Pen Pack etco n t ai n i n g ; J u d gm en t ; Cau s e Nu m

b er 5 3 3 01 ; Di s t ri ctCo u rto f J effers o n Co u n ty ; St at e o f Texa s v. Jef

f er y Kei th Pr evo st ; Ag g rav at edAs s au lt ; 0 9/ 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 2 0 y ears TDC0 4 /0 9 / 1 9 9 0

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 4 0
- Cri m in al In fo rm at i o n ; ch arg i n g i n th e Co un t y Co u rto f J effers o n Co u n t y ; Cau se Nu m

b er 1 4 4 03 5 ; St a t e o

f Texa s v. Jef f er y Kei th Pr evo s t ; As s au l tFam il y Vi o len ce0 6/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 5 3 0 d ay s i n J ai l0 7 /2 5 / 2 0 0 5

St at e’ s Ex hi b i t3 4 1
- Cri m in al In fo rm at i o n ; ch arg i n g i n th e Co un t y Co u rto f J effers o n Co u n t y ; Cau se Nu m

b er 2 5 1 85 3 ; St a t e o

f Texa s v. Jef f er y Kei th Pr evo s t ; In t erferen ce wi t h an

Em erg en cy Tel ep h o n e Cal l -0 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 5 3 0 d ay s i n J ai l0 7 /2 5 / 2 0 0 5

2 6St at e Ex h i b i t3 4 2
-

J effers o n Co u n ty Sh eri ff’ s Offi ce Arres t Reco rd s ; St at e Ex h i b i t 3 4 3 ; TDC Di s ci p l i n ary Reco rd s ; Nu m ero u s Paro l e Rel eas e Ob ject i o ns b y

Law En fo rcem en t ; Nu m ero u s Vi o l at i o n s wh i l e i n TDC;

(RR-XXIV; p . 7 0 -7 4). Jo h n S ha n n o n Da vis ; a p ro s ecu t o r wi t h t he Harri s Co un t y Di s t ri ctAt t o rn ey ’ s Offi ce an d fo rm er J AG m ajo r i n th e M i l i t ary , i n t erp ret edAp p el l an t ’ s M i li t ary Reco rd s (St at e’ s Ex h ib it3 4 6-ad m i t t edwi t h ou tOb ject i on ). (RR-XXIV; p . 8 1 ). St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 3 4 6 , i n cl u d es Ap p el l an t ’ s en li s tm en tp ap ers , m ed i cal reco rd s , d i s ci p l i n ary

reco rd s an d d i s ch arg e reco rd s . (RR-XXIV; p . 8 3). Th e m i l i t ary reco rd s i n d icat edAp p el l an ts erv edi n t h e m i l i t ary fro m 1 9 77 t o 1 9 8 6 , reduced b y n i n e h u n d red(9 0 0 ) d ay s du e t o AW OL co n v ict i o n s . (RR-XXIV; p . 8 4 -8 5 ). Ap p el l an t ’ s
m i l i t ary reco rd s i n cl u de ev i d en ce t h ath e was ch arg edtwi ce wi t h “ Des ert i o n ,” wh i ch
was redu cedt o “ Ab s en t wi t h o u to ffi ci al l eav e” res u l t i ng i n two “ AW OL”
co nv i ct i o ns . (RR-XXIV; p . 8 6). Ap p el l an t was al s o fo un dg u il t y i n a s p eci al co u rt
m art i al o f “ At t em

pt edFo rg ery ; Di s res pect i n g an Offi cer; an d Di s o bey i ng an n o n co m m is s i o n edo ffi cer. (RR-XXIV; p . 9 1 ). Th e p u n i sh m en t i m p o s ed was i n o n e h u n d redan dei g h t y

(1 8 0 ) d ay s [redu cedt o o n e h u nd redan dtwen t y -s i x d ay s (1 2 6 ) i n jai l] aft er ap p eal . (RR-XXIV; p . 9 1 ). Ap p el l an twas g i v en “ a b adco n du ct d is ch arg e” fro m th e m i l i tary . (RR-XXIV; p . 9 1-9 3 ).
2 7S

j o la n d a Br own , was Ap p el lan t ’ s p aro l e o ffi cer fro m J u n e o f 2 0 0 5 u n t i l Sep t em b er o f 2 0 0 5 . (RR-XXIV; p . 9 7 ). M s . Bro wn i n t erp ret edAp p el l an t ’ s p aro l e
reco rd s , ad m i t t edwi t h o u t ob ject i o n an dp ub l i s h edb efo re t h e ju ry . (RR-XXIV; p . 9 8
- 1 0 6 an d St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 3 4 8 ). M s . Bro wn t es t i fi ed Ap p el l an th adb een p aro l edan d h i s p aro le rev o k edn u m ero u s t i m es fro m 1 9 8 9 t o 2 0 05
. 3 4 (RR-XXIV; p . 1 1 2 -1 1 4 ). Ap p el l an t ’ s l as tp aro l e was rev o cat i o n was b as edo n “ t wo m is d em ean o r co n v i ct i o n s ” fo r “ As s au l tFam i l y v i o l en ce an dIn terferi n g wi t h an Em erg en cy Tel ep h o n e cal l
. ” (RR-XXIV; p . 1 1 0 -1 1 4 ). Ap p el l an twas s en t b ackt o p ri s o n (0 9 / 0 1 / 0 5 ) t o s erv e t he
rem ai n d er o f a t wen ty

(2 0 ) y ear s en t en ce fo r “ Ag g rav at edAs s au lt .” (RR-XXIV; p . 1 1 4 ). OnJ u l y

1 2 , 2 01 1 , Ap p el l an twas rel eas edo n p aro l e ag ai n t o a h al f-wayh o u s e. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 1 8 ). Fi n al l y , o n M arch 2 , 2 01 1 , Ap p el l an t d is ch arg es h is s en t en ce. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 2 1 ). Du ri n g cro s s -ex am i n at i o n , M s . Bro wn s t at eds h e d i d n o trecal l wh et h er Ap p el l an t ’ s p aro l e reco rd s i n d i cat edth atdu ri n g h i s i n carcerat io n (aft er 2 0 0 5 an d b efo re h is p aro l e i n 2 0 1 1) h e was treat ed fo r “ M ajo r Dep res s i o n ” wh i l e at t h e Sk y v i ew Un i t . (RR-XXIV; p . 1 2 0 -1 21 ). Mel is s a Ja cks o n , was a p aro l e o ffi cer an dcas e m an ag er at th e Beau m o n t Ho u s e, a h al f-wayh o u s e fo r p aro l ees . (RR-XXIV; 1 2 9 ). M s . J ack s on m etAp p el l an t

3 4 Appellant’s parole was revoked on October 28, 1989; J a nuary 1, 2003, and J une 27, 2005. (RR-XXIV; p. 136). 2 8i n Decem

b er o f 2 0 1 0 , wh en h e was p aro l edt o th e Beau m o n tHo u s e fro mTDC. (RRXXIV; p . 1 2 9 ). Sh e i d en t i fi edSt at e’ s Ex h i b i t 3 49 (p aro l e reco rd s o f Ap p el l an t reg ard i n g s t ay

at Beau m o n tHo us e) wh i ch were ad m i t t edwi t h o uto b ject i o n . (RRXXIV; p . 1 3 0 ). Ap p el l an twas as s i g n edt o t h e “ cl ean up ” crew atth e Beau m o n t Ho u s e. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 3 3 ). Ap p el l an t ’ s m ed i cal h i s t o ry i n d i cat edthath e was d i ag n o s edwi t h “ M ajo r Dep res s i o n ” an d t reat edwi t h “ Si n eq u an ” wh il e atth e Skyv i ew Un i to f TDC fro m 1 9 9 1 -1 9 9 3
. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 3 4 an d p . 1 4 1 ). Ap p el l an t
was referred t o “ Sp i nd l et o p” (a m en t al h eal t h faci l i t y ) fo r fu rt her ev al uat i o n an d t reat m en to n J an u ary

5 , 2 0 11 . (RR-XXIV; p . 1 3 5 ). Du ri n g Ap p el l an t ’ s res i d en cy at t h e Beau m o n tHo u s e, h e v i o l at edfaci l i t y ru l es b y fai l i n g t o en g ag e i n a jo b s earch
. 3 5 (RR-XXIV; p . 1 3 9 ). Th er es s a l Lo r r a i n e Pr evo s t , Ap p el l an t ’ s d au g h t er, was b orn an dg rew up i n Po rtArt h u r, Tex as . (RR-XXIV; p . 1 5 3). Sh e was rai sedb y h er m o t h er wh o p as s ed away J an u ary 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 . (RR-XXIV; p . 1 5 3 ). Duri n g h er ch i ld h o o ds h e h adl i m i t ed
co nt actwi t h h er fat h er du e t o h i s i n carcerat i o n . (RR-XXIV; p . 1 5 5 ). Th eres s al Prev o s th as two s t ep s i s t ers (St ark l yn an dZen o b ia). (RR-XXIV; p . 1 5 7 ). Ap p el l an t

3 5 Ms. J ackson testified that Appellant was g iven at least 5 prospective job opportunities per week during his stay at the B eaumont House. (RR-XXI V; p. 139-140). Appellant refused to make any effort to interview for any of the job opportunities.(RR-XXIV; p. 139-140). Appellant purportedly told Ms. J ackson that he did not want a job. (RR-XXI V; p. 139- 140). Appellant purportedly stated: “I ’m just g o ing to sit here until I ’m done and then I ’m g oing to walk out of here.” (RR-XXI V; p. 140). 2 9i s th ei r b i ol o g i cal fat her, b u tth ey d o n o ts h are t h e s am e b i o l o g i cal m ot h ers . (RRXXIV; p . 1 5 7 ). Ap p el l an tco nt act ed Th eres sal , up o n h i s rel eas e fro m th e Beau m on t Ho u s e i n M arch o f 2 0 1 1. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 5 7 -1 5 8 ). Sh e g av e Ap p el l an t a ri de fro m t h e Beau m o n tHo u s e t o h er s t ep -s i s t er’ s (St ark l yn an dZen o b i a’ s ) ap art m en t . (RRXXIV; p . 1 5 7 -1 5 8 ). Ap p el l an tl i v edwi t h t hem up on h i s fi rs trel eas e fro m th e Beau m on tHo us e. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 5 9 -1 6 0 ). Th eres s al was cl o s e wi t h h er Au n t , Vi ck i Al ex an d er an dh adm etSh erryWh i t e an dKy l e Lav erg e. (RR-XXIV; 1 59 -1 6 0 ). At
s o m e p o i n t , up o n l earn i n g t h atSh erryWh i t e an dAp p el l an twere d at i n g , Th eres s al Prev o s tt o l dSh erryth ath er fat h er h ada h i s to ry o f dru g ab u s e. 3 6 (RR-XXIV; p . 1 6 5 ). In M ay o f 2 0 1 1 , s h e warn ed Sh erryth at h e m ay h av e rel ap s ed . (RR-XXIV; p . 1 6 5 ). Ap p el l an tt o l dTh eres s al th ath e l o v edSh erryWh i t e. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 83 ). Sh e b el i ev e t h atth e d eat h o f Ap pel l an t ’ s m ot h er, wi fe an db ro t h er, al l wi t h in th e l as t y ear (d u ri ng h i s i n carcerat i o n ) was a fact o r i n cau s in g h is m ajo r d ep res s i o n . (RRXXIV; p . 1 8 4 ). Aft er h i s arres tfo r Sh erryan dKy l e’ s m u rd er, s h e wo u l dv i si th i m i n jai l. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 8 5 -1 8 8). He was v ery s adan dwo u l dcry

a l o t. (RR-XXIV; p . 1 8 8 ). Ja cq uel i n Eag l in , t es ti fi eds h e was as s au l t edb y Ap p el l an t o n J an uary1 6 ,

3 6 Theressal Prevost testified that her mother moved her and her step sister’s to a shelter when they

were growingup due to her father’s drug addiction. (RR-XXIV; p. 168-169). She also witnessed her father assault her mother in 2005. (RR-XXI V; p. 170). 3 01 9 8 5 . (RR-XXV; p . 6 ). M s . Eag l i n (fo rm erl y J acq u el i n Bu ch an an ) l i vedi n th e s am e ap art m en tco m

pl ex acro s s the h al l fro m Dawn St ep h en s o n . (RR-XXV; p . 6 -8 ). M s . Eag l i n o b s erv edAp p el lan ttry i ng t o fo rce h i s way i n t o M s . St ep hen s on ’ s ap art m en t
. (RR-XXV; p . 6 -8 ). Sh e t ol dAp p el l an t M s . St ep h en s o n was n oth o m e an dAp p el lan t

“ ex p lo d ed ” o n h er. (RR-XXV; p . 6 -8 ). He kn o ck edh er t o th e g ro u nd , b eg an ch o ki n g h er an dh adt o b e fo rci b l y rem o v ed . (RR-XXV; p . 8 ). M s . Eag l i n th o u g h tAp p el lan t
was g o in g t o k i l l h er. (RR-XXV; p . 8 ). Sh e s us t ai n ed i n ju ri es th atreq u i redtreat m en t atth e h o sp i t al . (RR-XXV; p . 9 ). Vi cki Lewis , an d h er t wo d au g h t ers were l i vi n g wi t h Vi ck i Al ex an d er i n h er ap art m en tdu ri n g th e s pri n g o f 2 0 1 1 . (RR-XXV; p . 1 3 ). Sh e fi rs tm etAp p el l an t du ri n g a p art y

h o s t ed atVi ck i ’ s Al ex an d er’ s ap art m en to n h i s b eh al f. (RR-XXV; p . 1 3 ). M s . Lewi s d es cri b edan i n ci d en taro u n dAp ri l o f 2 0 1 1 , wh ereb y s h e was p h y s i cal l y

as s au lt edb y

Ap p el lan t . (RR-XXV; p . 1 7 ). M s . Lewi s d i dn o tcal l th e p o l ice b ecau s e s h e was afrai d o f Ap p el l an t. (RR-XXV; p . 2 1). Ra mo n a Co ll i n s , Ap p el l an t ’ s n i ece was atthe ap art m en ti n Ap ri l o f 2 0 1 1 an d wi tn es s edAp p el l an tas sau lt Vi ck i Lewi s , b y ch o k i n g h er. (RR-XXV; p . 2 7-2 8 ). La u r a Lee S i mmo n s , d es cri b edo wn i n g a Bl ue 1 9 7 7 M u s tan g o n Au g u s t3 1 , 1 9 8 0 . (RR-XXV; p . 3 4 -3 5 ). Sh e recal l eddri vi n g t h e M u s t an g t o a cl ub t h atev en i n g cal l edth e “ 5 0 0 Cl ub ” i n J ack s o n v i l l e, No rt h Caro l i n a. (RR-XXV; p . 3 5). M s .
3 1Si m

m o ns m etAp p el l an t atth e cl ub thatev en i n g . (RR-XXV; p . 3 5 ). Aro u ndcl o s i n g t i m e, M s . Si m

m o n s ag reedt o g iv e Ap pel l an t a ri d e h o m e i n h er car. (RR-XXV; p . 3 5 -4 0 ). Aft er s h e dri v es Ap p el l an tt o h i s res id en ce, h e p u rp o rt ed l y g et s s ex ual l y ag gres s i v e wi t h h er an di s n otd et erred b y h er res i s t an ce. (RR-XXV; 3 5 -4 0 ). M s . Si m m o ns es cap es fro m

h er car, fl ees t o a n earb y co n v en i en ce s to re an dcal l s th e p o l ice. (RR-XXV; p . 4 0 -4 1 ). Th ereaft er, Ap pel l an twi t h o u th er co n sen tdro v e o ff i n h er car. (RR-XXV; p . 4 1 -4 2 ). Mi ch ael Ma g b y , was wo rk i n g fo r ParkIn n Ho t el n ear Po rt Art h u r, Tex as i n J u ly o f 1 98 7. (RR-XXV; p . 4 8 -4 9 ). He h i redAp p el l an tas a g en eral m ai nt en an ce
m an fo r t h e ParkIn n M o t el . (RR-XXV; p . 5 0 ). OnJ u l y 3 , 1 98 7 , M r. M ag b y ’ s 1 9 8 6 Is u zu p i ck

up was s to l en . (RR-XXV; p . 5 1 ). He al s o h ada g o ld ri n g s t o len . (RRXXV; 6 0 -6 3 ). M r. M ag b y rep o rt edt o p o l i ce t h atan o t her em p lo y ee h ado b serv ed Ap p el l an tt ak e t h e t ru ck . (RR-XXV; p . 5 1 ). Lat er, the t ru ckwas fo u n dp ark edi n a Safewayp ark in g l otwi t h th e rad i o m i s s i n g . (RR-XXV; p . 5 3 -5 4 ). M r. M ag by ’ s g o l d ri n g was fo un d i n a p awns h o p . (RR-XXV; p . 5 0 -5 4 ). Ap p el l an t d idn o tev er rep o rt b ackt o wo rk . (RR-XXV; p . 5 4 ). Da wn W i n d o n , g rew up i n Po rtArt h u r, Tex as . (RR-XXV; p . 5 6 ). Ap p el l an t

3 2an d h er (k n o wn as Dawn St ep h en s o n 3 7 ) d at edi n th e earl y 8 0's . (RR-XXV; p . 5 7 ).

M s. W i n d o n d es cri b edb ei ng as s au l t edo n at l eas ttwo o ccas io n s b y Ap p el l an t , fi rs t wh i l e o n a d at e wi t h h i m

an d l at er aft er s he s t o p p eds eei n g Ap pel l an t . (RR-XXV; p . 6 6 -6 7 an dp . 7 1 -7 3 ). Years l at er, M s . W i n d o n , was th e n i g htau d i tcl erkatth e Park In n Ho tel du ri n g t h e t i m e t h atAp p el l an twas h iredas t h e m ai n t en an ce m an . (RRXXV; p . 6 0 -6 3 ). M s . W i n do n was th e em p lo y ee wh o s aw Ap p el l an tdri v i n g M r. M ag b y ’ s s t o l entru ck
. (RR-XXV; p . 6 0 -6 3 ). Sh e al s o o b s erv ed M r. M ag b y ’ s g o l d ri n g i n Ap p el l an t ’ s p o s s es s i o n . (RR-XXV; p . 6 0 -6 3 ). Mu r i el Ch a rl es Bel l , wen tt o s am e Hi g h Sch o ol as Ap p el l an t , b u tm eth i m l at er. (RR-XXV; p . 9 3 -9 5 ). M u ri el Bel l wo rk edwi t h Dawn St ep h en s o n (n o w Dawn W i n d on ) ata Po pey e’ s i n Po rtArt h u r. (RR-XXV; p . 9 5 ). OnSep t em b er 1 , 1 9 8 9 , M s. Bel l des cri bedb ei n g as sau lt edb y Ap p el l an t(ch o k edh er wi t h a b el tt o a p o i n to f p as s i n g o u t ). (RR-XXV; p . 1 0 4 -1 0 5). As a res u l t o f t h i s i nci d en t , Ap p el l an twas
co nv i ct ed o f Ag g rav at edAs sau ltan ds en ten cedt o twen t y (2 0 ) y ears i n p ri s on . (RRXXV; p . 1 1 2 -1 1 3). Th ereaft er, t h e St at e res t ed . (RR-XXV; p . 1 1 4 ). Fro m Ap ri l 1 , 2 0 1 4 t o Ap ri l 3 , 2 0 1 4 , th e Defen s e cal l eds ev en t een (1 7 ) wi tn es s es reg ard i n g th e p u n i s hm en t p h as e o f t he t ri al . (RR-XXVI-XXVIII).

3 7 Ms. W indon was living across the hall in the same apartment complex from Jacquelin Eaglin. (RR-XXV; p 6-8). Appellant was try ing to break into Ms. W indon’s apartment when Ms. Eag lin confronted Appellant, leading to Appellant’s assault of her. (RR-XXV; p. 6-8). 3 3Tr is h a Ru b er o , wo rk edatSp i nd l et op (a m en t al h eal t h faci l i t y fo r t h e
u n i ns u red ) o n Decem

ber 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 . (RR-XXVI; p . 8 ). M s. Rub ero m etAp pel l an tat t h e faci l i t y

o n thatd ay

an drev i ewedh i s i ni t i al p ap er wo rk . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 0 ). Sh e
n o t edth atAp p el lan th ada p rev i o u s d i ag n o s i s o f M ajo r Dep res s i o n an dh adrecen t l y l o s th i s wi fe an dm o t h er. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 0 ). Ap p el l an t ret u rn edo n J an u ary 5 , 2 0 1 1 fo r an i n i t i al i n t ak e ap p o in t m en t . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 0 -1 1 ). Ap p el lan t ret u rn edo n J an u ary 1 2, 2 0 1 1 fo r a fo l l o w-up treat m en ts es s i o n. (RR-XVI; p . 1 2 ). Jef f r ey Demu th , wo rk edatSp i n d l et op as a i n t ak e co u n s el o r an dm etAp p el l an t
o n J an u ary

1 2 , 2 0 1 1 . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 8 ). M r. Dem u th t es t i fi edthath i s i n t ak e
co m m en t reg ard i n g Ap p el l an trefl ect edth e fo l l o wi n g : Ap p el l an twas 5 1 at t h e t i m e
o f i n t ak e i n t erv i ew. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 9 ). Ap p el lan trep o rt edh e h ad b een h o s p i t al i zed atSkyvi ew i n 1 9 93 . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 9 ). Ap p el l an t was d i ag n o s edwi t h “ M ajo r Dep res s i on an d t reat ed wi t h Do x ep i n .” (RR-XXVI; p . 1 9 ). Ap p el l an tl as trecei v ed
m ed i ci n e i n 1 9 95 . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 9 ). Ap p el l an t rep o rt ed a s u i ci d e at t em p ti n th e earl y 1 9 8 0's . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 9 ). Ap p el l an trep o rt edthath e h adrecen t l y b een p aro l edfro m

p ri s o n an d was s ch edu l edt o b e d is ch arg edfro m th e Beau m on tCen ter i n 4 9 d ay s . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 9 ). Ap p el l an trep ort edthath i s wi fe an dm o th er h ad
recen tl y p as s edaway . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 9 -2 0 ). Ap p el lan trep o rt edh e was h av i n g d i ffi cu l t y co p i n g. (RR-XXVI; p . 2 0 ). M r. Dem ut h en t ereda d i ag n o si s t h atAp p el l an t
3 4was ex p eri en ci n g an “ ad ju s t m en td i s ord er” an d “ b ereav em en t .” (RR-XXVI; p . 2 0
- 2 1 ). Ho w ev er, M r. Dem

ut h d i d n o t b el i ev e Ap p el l an t’ s co n d it i o n m etth e cri t eri a fo r referral t o a p s y ch i at ri s t , s o h e d i dn o td o s o . (RR-XXVI; p . 2 1 -2 2). Al es i a Bea n , m et Ap p el l an ti n 1 9 8 2 wh en s h e was s ev en t een (1 7 ). (RR-XXVI; p . 3 2 ). Sh e an d Ap p el l an th ada d au g h t er t h atth ey n am edZen o b ia. (RR-XXVI; p . 3 1 ). Th e rel at i on s h ip l as t ed ab o u ta y ear an d a h al f, b u t t h ey h av e rem ai n edi n
co nt actan ds h e s t i ll l o ves Ap pel l an t . (RR-XXVI; p . 3 1 -3 3 an d p . 4 3 ). M s . Bean d es cri b ed Ap p el l an tas a g o o dfat h er wh o l o v ed Zen o b i a v ery m u ch
. (RR-XXVI; p . 3 6 ). On cro s s -ex am in at i o n , M s . Bean ad m i tt edthatth ei r rel at i o n s h i p i ncl u d ed p h y s i cal ab u s e att im es b y b o t h p art i es . (RR-XXVI; p . 4 1 -4 3 ). Th o mes a Lewis Ho l li n s , i s Ap p el l an t ’ s h al f-s i s t er. (RR-XXVI; p . 4 4 ). Ap p el l an twas th irt een (1 3 ) wh en s h e was b o rn . (RR-XXVI; p . 4 4 ). Ap p el l an tan d M s. Ho l l in s h av e t h e s am e b i o l o g i cal m o t h er, Bet t y Pr evo st Jo n es . (RR-XXVI; p . 4 5 ). Ap pel l an t an d h er were rai sedb y t h ei r m at ern al g ran dp aren t s . (RR-XXVI; p . 4 6 ). Du ri n g h er ch i l d h o o d, M s . Ho l l i ns h adch ro n i c as t h m a an dl un g fai l u re t h at req u i redh er t o b e h om e s ch o ol ed . (RR-XXVI; p . 4 6 -4 7 ). Sh e h adt o b e i n an
o x y g en t en tb ot h d ay

an dn i gh t . (RR-XXVI; p . 4 7 ). Ap p el l an t act ed as h er h o m e t each er an dwo u l ds p en dt im e i n th e o x y g en t en t wi t h h er. (RR-XXVI; p . 4 8 ). Sh e

3 5recal l s Ap p el l an tp l ay edfo o tb al l 3 8 i n Hi g h Sch o ol an dwas v ery p o p u l ar. (RR-XXVI; p . 4 9 ). M s . Hal l s t at edth atth e fam i l y h as a h i s t o ry

o f m en t al h eal t h i s s u es , b o t h s h e
an d h er m o t h er were h os p i t al i zedfo r d ep res s i o n . (RR-XXVI; p . 5 0 ). Aft er Ap p el l an t l o s th i s d au g h t er, La Do n n a h e was n ’ tth e s am e. (RR-XXVI; p . 5 1 ). Ap pel l an twas a l o v in g an dn u rtu ri n g fat h er. (RR-XXVI; p . 5 1-5 2 ). Up o n Ap p el l an t’ s l at es t p aro l e rel eas e , t h ey

wo u ldat t en dch u rch t o g et her. (RR-XXVI; p . 5 3 ). Ap p el l an t ’ s fat h er, Ri ch ardSen eg al wen t t o p ri s o n “ s ev eral t i m es .” (RR-XXVI; p . 5 4 ). M s . Ho l l i n s m et Sh erryWh i te an db el i ev ed s he was “ v ery s weet .” (RR-XXVI; p . 5 5). Sh e o b s erv ed t h em t og et h er an d b el i ev edAp pel l an t “ l o v edh er.” (RR-XXVI; p . 5 5 ). M s . Ho l l i n s kn ew Ap p el l an t h ad a h i s t ory o f d ru g an dal co h o l ab u s e. (RR-XXVI; p . 5 6 ). Ap p el l an treg ret t edth ath e was u n ab l e t o at t en dh i s wi fe (Th eres sal -Lo rrai n e’ s
m o t h er), h i s b ro t h er an dBet ty J o n es ’ fu n eral s du e t o h i s i n carcerat io n . (RR-XXVI; p .6 2 an d p . 7 1 ). Sh e al s o b el i ev ed h e h add i ffi cu l t y ad ju s t i n g t o s o ci et y

up o n h i s d i s ch arg e fro m

p aro l e. (RR-XXVI; p . 5 6 ). Aft er t h e m u rd ers , Ap p el l an tcri eda l o t
an d was rem o rs efu l . (RR-XXVI; p . 6 0 ). Cl ar en ce Ca l l a h a n , i s a m i n i s t er at th e “ Zi o n Tem p l e Ch urch o f Go dan d Ch ri s t” l o cat ed at8 2 2 Eas t Twel ft h St reet i n Po rtArt h u r, Tex as . (RR-XXVI; p . 9 5 ).

3 8 Appellant’s athletic career in Hig h School was described by Ms. Hall as follows: “He was really

g ood at football. So he made the little circle a lot. I t was a big thing .” (RR-XXVI ; p. 49. 3 6He m etAp p el l an tas a m em b er o f h i s co n greg at i o n ab o u tfi ft een y ears ag o. (RRXXVI; p . 9 6 ). He wo u l dh av e d i n n er at Ap p el l an tan d Th eres s al ’ s h o u s e o n
o ccas io n . (RR-XXVI; p . 9 6 -9 7 ). Ap p el l an tan dSh erryWh i t e at t en d ed h i s ch u rch o n atl eas t o n e o ccas i on . (RR-XXVI; p . 9 8 -9 9 ). Rev eren dCal l ah ano b s erv eddu ri n g th e
s erv i ce o n th ato ccas i on , Ap pel l an twas d eep l y weep in g . (RR-XXVI; p . 9 8 -9 9 ). On
cro s s -ex am i n at i o n , Rev eren dCal l ah anad m i t t edthato n Au g u s t1 1 , 1 99 9 , h e wro te a l et t er t o th e p aro l e b o ardo n Ap p el l an t ’ s b eh al f. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 0 0 an dSt at e’ s Ex h i b i t3 6 1 ). Her s hel l e Pr evo s t , i s Ap p el l an t ’ s fi rs tco us i n an dtwel v e (1 2 ) y ears h i s jun i o r. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 0 1 -1 0 7 ). He o b s erv edAp pel l an ti n t eract wi th h i s ch il d ren i n 2 0 11
an d b el i ev edh e was an at ten t i v e fat h er. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 0 9 ). Sta rkl yn Lo g a n , i s Ap p el l an t ’ s d au g h t er fro m h i s rel at i o n s h i p wi t h Gl o ri a An n Freem an . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 1 0 -1 11 ). Ap p el l an th el p ed o u twi t h h er ch il d ren an d t reat edth em

wel l . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 1 6). Aft er t h e m u rd ers s h e v is i tedAp p el lan ti n jai l
an d h e cri edan d was s ad . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 1 6 -1 1 7). M s . Lo g ans t at eds h e l o v es h er fat h er. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 1 7 ). Di nis h a Jo s ep h , i s Ap p el l an t ’ s s i s t er an dtwel v e y ears h i s jun i o r. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 2 1 ). Sh e was rai s edb y h er m o t h er an dg ran dm o t h er Ora San d i es . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 2 2 ). Ap pel l an twas h er h ero g ro wi n g up an dact edl i ke a fat h er fi gu re t o h er. (RR3 7XXVI; p . 1 2 3 -1 2 4 ). Sh ort ly b efo re t h e m

u rd er o f Sh erryWh i t e, M s . J o sep h o v er h eard a t el ep h o n e co n vers at io n Ap p el l an th adwi t h Sh erry Wh it e. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 3 1 -1 3 2 ). Aft erward s , Ap p el l an tretu rn edt o Ho u s t o n an dl o ok eds adan d reject ed
. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 3 3 ). Ryn is h a Jo n es , i s Ap p el l an t ’ s n i ece (d au gh t er o f Di n i s h a J os ep h ). (RR-XXVI; p . 1 4 7 ). Sh e d es cri b edh er u ncl e as “ l o v in g an dcari n g.” (RR-XXVI; p . 1 4 8 ). Kevi n Jo nes , i s Ap p el l an t ’ s y o u n g er s t ep b ro t h er b y ei g h t (8 ) y ears . (RRXXVI; p . 1 5 6 ). Th ey

h av e t h e s am e m o th er (Bet t y J o nes ) b u td i fferen tfat h ers . (RRXXVI; p . 1 5 7 ). Nei t her Ap p el l an to r M r. J o nes kn ew o r s aw m u ch o f t hei r b i o l o g i cal fat h ers g ro wi n g up . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 5 8-1 5 9 ). Ap p el l an twas a fat h er fi g u re t o M r. J o nes . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 5 9 ). Aft er t h e d eat h o f St ark y l n , th ei r m o t her (Bet t y J o n es ) h ada m en t al b reakd o wn an d s pen tt im e i n a St at e M en t al Ho s p i t al . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 6 1 ). Bet t y

J o nes wo u l db ri n g m en h o m e wi t h h er t hats h e m eti n cl ub s. (RR-XXVI; p . 1 6 3 ). Oft en th e m en wo u l d g eti n p hy s ical fi g h t s wi t h Ap p el l an t . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 6 4 ). M r. J o n es recal l edo n e o ccas i o n wh ere h is m o t h er g o t an g ry an dfi reda p i st o l i n J effrey ’ s d i rect i on i n o rd er t o b reakup a fi g h t b et ween Ap p el lan tan dh er m an fri en do f t h e m o m en t . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 6 5 ). M r. J o n es recal l edAp p el l an tch an g ed aft er h i s d au g h t er (LaDo nn a) d i ed . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 6 6 -1 7 2 ). Ap p el lan t h adan g er i s s u es aft er h er d eat h an dh i s t i m e i n th e m i l it ary . (RR-XXVI; p . 1 7 3 ).
3 8La n e Herko lt z , a fo rm er em

p l o y ee o f t h e Tex as p ri s o n s y s t em , d es cri bedth e
s ecu ri t y an dcl as si fi cat io n s y st em ap p l i cab l e t o o ffen d er’ s co n vi ct edo f Cap i t al M urd er. (RR-XXVII; p . 1 3 -3 6 ). M r. Herk o l t z rev i ewedAp p el lan t ’ s p rev i o u s p ri s o n
reco rd s fro m

h i s th ree p rev i o u s p ri s o n t erm s , i n cl u d i n g h i s d i s ci pl i n ary reco rd s . (RRXXVII; p . 3 5 -3 6 an dSt at e’ s Ex h i b i t3 3 9). M r. Herk o l tz d es cri b edthe Tex as p ri s o n
s y s t em as a zero t o l eran ce i n s ti tu t i o n . (RRXXVII; p . 3 5-3 6 ). A p ri s o n i n m at e h as n o ri g h tt o refu s e a l awfu l d i rect o rd er fro m a p ri so n co rrect i on al o ffi cer. (RRXXVII; p . 3 6 ). A d i s ci p l i n ary

v i o l at i o n wi ll b eco m e a p erm an en tp arto f t he i n m at e’ s p ri s o n
reco rd s . (RRXXVII; p . 3 6 -3 7 ). Du ri n g Ap p el l an t ’ s fi rs tan ds eco n d p ri s o n t erm s h e h adn o d is ci p l i n ary

rep o rt s o r p ro b l em s . (RRXXVII; p . 3 6 -3 8 ). Du ri ng Ap pel l an t ’ s t h i rdtri p , h e h ad s om e d is ci p li n ary p ro b l em s . (RR-XXVII; p . 3 8). Sp eci fi cal l y , o n J an u ary 1 8, 1 9 9 5 h e fai l edt o o b ey an do rd er t o b e qui eti n th e m ai n h al l way . (RRXXVII; p . 3 9 ). OnM ay

3 1 , 1 9 9 5 h e p l edg u i l t y

t o “po s ses s i o n o f co n t rab an d , n am el y t ob acco ” an dwas res tri ct edt o h i s cel l fo r th irt y (3 0 ) d ay s . (RR-XXVII; p . 3 9 ). On Ap ri l 3 0 , 1 9 9 5 h e was d i s ci p l i n edfo r u s i n g p ro fan i t y an ds en ten ce t o th i rt y d ay co m m i s s ary res t ri ct i o n . (RR-XXVII; p . 4 0). On Au g u s t3 1 , 1 9 9 1 h e was rep ri m an d ed(n o p un i s h m en t ) fo r b ei n g i n s o m eo n e el s e’ s cel l . (RR-XXVII; p . 4 3 ). On M ay 2 1 , 1 9 9 1 h e was g i v en a fi ft een (1 5 ) d ay co m m i s s ary res t ri ct i o n fo r p o s s es si o n o f co nt rab an d(s i x p ieces o f co lo redco n s tru ct i on p ap er). (RR-XXVII; p .
3 94 3 ). On M ay

1 1 , 1 99 1 h e was g i v en a t h i rty (3 0 ) d ay co m m i s saryres t ri ct i o n fo r p o s s es si o n o f co nt rab an d(rad i o wi t h o u tp ro per p ap er wo rk ). (RR-XXVII; p . 4 5 ). On Ap ri l 6 , 1 9 9 1 h e ad m i t tedt o a ru l e v i o l at i o n an dwas p u n i s hedb y fi ft een d ay

(1 5 )
co m m is s ary res tri ct i o n an dfo u r ex t ra du t y h o u rs . (RR-XXVII; p . 4 5 ). OnJ an u ary 2 2 , 1 9 9 1 h e was g i v en a t h i rt y (3 0 ) d ay co m

m i ss ary res t ri ct i o n fo r b ei n g i n th e
wro n g cel l . (RR-XXVII; p . 4 5 ). OnAu g u s t 1 3 , 1 9 9 0 h e was p u n i s h edb y a fi ft een d ay cel l res t ri ct i o n fo r refu s i n g an two o rd ers t o retu rn t o h i s cel l . (RR-XXVII; p . 4 7 ). OnJ u l y

3 , 1 9 9 0 h e v i o l at eda p o s t edru l e b y “ fai l i n g t o retu rn a s h o rt s an d
s o ck s ” an dwas g i ven a co m m i ss ary res t ri ct i o n . (RR-XXVII; p . 4 9). On Au g u s t1 6 , 1 9 9 0 h e was d i s ci p l i n edfo r l y i ng t o a co rrect i o nal o ffi cer an d recei v eda t en d ay
co m m is s ary res tri ct i o n . (RR-XXVII; p . 4 9-5 0 ). OnJ an u ary 3 , 1 9 9 6 h e p o ss es s ed
co nt rab an dan dwas g iv en a t h i rty d ay co m m i s s ary res tri ct i o n . (RR-XXVII; p . 5 0 ). On M ay 1 3 , 1 9 9 5 , h e ex p o sedh i s p en i s t o a co rrect i o n al o ffi cer an dwas g i v en a fo rt y -fi v e d ay co m

m i ss ary res tri ct i o n . (RR-XXVII; p . 5 1). Gi lb er t Vi l a n o , i s a p ri s o n g u ardatth e J es t er Un i to f t h e Tex as Pri so n Sy s t em . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 0 8 ). He wo rk edatth e m ax i m u m s ecu ri t y M cCo n nel l Un i tfo r t wo y ears . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 0 8 ). Atth e M cCo n n el l Un it , m an y i n m at es are s erv i n g Li fe
s en t en ces wi th o u t p aro l e. (RR-XXVII; p . 1 0 8 ). Th e m ax i m u m s ecu ri t y u n i t s h av e
cam eras ev erywh ere, m o ni t o ri n g act i v i t y 2 4 / 7 i n t h e cel l s b l o ck s, h al lway s,
4 0en cl o sedareas wh ere t h e o ffi cer’ s o p erat e th e d o o rs , th e rec y ard s an d i n th e d ay

ro o m . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 0 8 ). Offi cer Vi l an o m etAp p el lan tas an i n m at e aro u n d2 0 08
. (RR-XXVII; p . 1 1 4 ). Ap p el l an two rk edfo r Offi cer Vi l an o i n the k en n el ’ s wh ere t h e d o g s (b l oo d h o un ds ) are cared fo r. (RR-XXVII; p . 1 1 5 ). Offi cer Vi l an o recal l edo n l y
o n e i n s t an ce 3 9 wh ere h e h ad an y d i s ci p l i n ary

p ro bl em s wi t h Ap pel l an tdu ri n g th e p eri o d th atAp p el l an twas u n d er h i s s up erv is i on . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 1 8 ). Lu is Lo p ez , i s a p ri s o n g u ardatth e Lo p ez Un i to f t h e Tex as Pri s o n Sy s t em . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 3 8 ). Offi cer Lo p ez m etAp p el l an t wh en th ey were b o t h atth e Seg o v i a Un i t . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 3 9 ). Ap p el l an two rk ed fo r Offi cer Lo p ez fo r ab o u t
o n e y ear, du ri n g t h att i m e h e h adn o d i s ci p li n ary p ro b l em s wi t h Ap pel l an t . (RRXXVII; p . 1 3 9 -1 40 ). Er ic Tr evi n o , wo rk ed atth e Lo p ez an dSeg o vi a Un i t s o f t h e Tex as p ri s o n
s y s t em as a p s y ch o t h erap i s t . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 4 6 -1 4 7 ). He m etAp pel l an ti n Feb ru ary o f 2 0 1 0 fo r g ri ef co u n s el i n g rel at i v e t o h i s d ep res si on . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 4 9
- 1 5 0 ). Ap p el l an th adl os t t h ree fam i l y m em b ers i n a t hree (3 ) weekt i m e s p an . (RRXXVII; p . 1 5 0 -1 51 ). Ap pel l an t was p o l i t e, co u rt eo u s an d res p ect fu l t o w ardM r. Trev i no . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 51 ). Atn o t i m e d i dM r. Trev i n o feel th reat en edb y

3 9 Appellant and another inmate who also worked in the kennels got into a verbal altercation about a work issue. 4 1Ap p el l an t . (RR-XXVII; p . 1 5 1 -1 5 2 ).

Da n i el Pr evo s t , Ap p el lan t ’ s fi rs tco u s i n , was cl o s e wi t h Ap pel l an tg ro wi n g up. (RR-XXVIII; p . 8 ). Da n iel Pr evo s t , b el i ev edth atAp pel l an twas ch an g edb y th e t rau m a as so ci at edwi t h t h e d eat h s o f h i s s t ep -s i s t er Sta r kl yn an d h i s d au g h t er La Do nn a , b o t h o f wh o m h e was v ery cl o se wi t h . (RR-XXVIII; p . 1 4 ). Xen o bi a Gr een , i s Ap p el l an t ’ s d au g h t er. (RR-XXVIII; p . 2 5). Sh e d es cri b ed Ap p el l an t ’ s s ad n es s th ats h e wi t n es s edup o n v i s i t i n g h i m i n t h e Harri s Co u n t y , J ai l
. (RR-XXVIII; p . 3 2 ). Gi ld a Kes s n er , Ph d., i s a cl i n i cal p s y ch o l o g i s t . (RR-XXVIII; p . 3 8 ). Dr. Kes s n er s p o k e wi th Ap p el l an tfo r m an y h o u rs , s p o k e wi t h fam i ly m em b ers , rev i ewed h i s m ed i cal , s ch o o l , m i l i t ary an dp ri s o n reco rd s i n o rd er t o co m p l et e a p s y ch o l o g ical p ro fi l e o f Ap p el l an t
. (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 0 -4 3). Ap p el l an twas th e fi rs t ch i l d b o rn t o a t een ag e m o t h er, o u to f wed l o ckt o Ri ch ard Sen eg al (an ab s en to ld er fat h er) wh o h ad a cri m i n al co n v i ct io ns fo r p o s ses s i o n o f h ero i n e an d h o m i ci d e. (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 3
- 4 4 ). Ap p el l an twas rai sedb y h i s (s t ep -fat h er- Pet e J o n es ’ p aren t s ) an di n an
en vi ro nm en tth atwas n o t s up p o rt i ve. (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 4 ). Hi s m o t h er, wh en aro u n d
wo u l ddres s h im

up i n g i rl s cl ot h es wh en h e wo u l ds h o w em o t i o n , b o y s d o n ’ tcry . (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 5 -4 6 ). Ap p el l an t ’ s s ib l i n g s were fat h ered b y d i fferen t m en , m ak i ng d is ci pl in e co n fu s i ng an di n co n s i s t en t. (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 6 ). Th e g ran d m o t h er
4 2ran a cl ub cal l edth e “ Sh i p Ch an n el .” (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 6 ). Th i s ex po s edAp p el l an tt o

a l o to f Adu l t En tert ai n m en t. (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 6 -4 7). Ap p el l an twas th i rt een (1 3 ) y ears o l dwh en St ark l yn d i ed . (RR-XXVIII; p . 4 7). Th i s h ada h u g e i m p acto n Ap p el l an tan dh e was i l l equ i p p edp s y ch ol o g i cal l y t o d eal wi t h th i s l o s s. (RRXXVIII; p . 5 2 ). Ap p el l an t ’ s m o t h er was treat edatRu s kSt at e Ho sp i t al as an i n p at i en ti n 1 9 7 3 an d 1 9 76 fo r m en t al i l l n es s . (RR-XXVIII; p . 5 3 ). Ap p el l an tjo i n ed t h e M ari n es wh en h e g radu at edfro m Hi g h Sch o o l . (RR-XXVIII; p . 5 8 ). He d i dh e b as i c t rai n i n g i n San Di eg o , Cal i fo rn i a an dh is ad v an cedtrai n i n g i n No rth Caro l i n a. (RR-XXVIII; p . 5 8 -5 9 ). Ap p el l an tGl o ri a Freem an i n Hi g h Sch o o l , s h e g o tp reg n an t
an d m o v edo u t t o No rth Caro l i n a. (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 0). St ark l yn was b o rn i n J u ne o f 1 9 7 8 , ab ou to n e m o nt h aft er t hey were m arri ed
. (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 0 ). Th e dri n k i n g ag e i n No rt h Caro l i n a was ei g h teen , Ap p el l an ti s s in g l e wh en h e fi rs tarri v es an di s p art y i n g a l ot . (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 0 -6 1 ). When St ark l yn arri v es , th ey m o v e t o th e
m arri edquart ers o n b as e. (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 0-6 1 ). Gl o ri a d o es n ’ tkn o w an y o n e an d i ti s d i ffi cu l tfo r h er. (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 0 -6 1 ). Sh e g et s i n a car acci d en t t h atd am ag es h er p el v i s an dm o v es b ackt o Tex as . (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 2 ). Ap pel l an tl eav es t o ch eck
o n Gl o ri a i n th e h o s pi t al i n Tex as wi t h o u th is Co m m an d er’ s p erm i s si o n an di s ch arg edwi t h b ei n g AW OL. (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 2). LaDo n n a i s b o rn i n J u n e o f 1 9 7 9, wi th s ev ere b i rt h d efect s an dd i edei g ht een m o n t hs l at er. (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 2 -6 5 ).
4 3Th i s i s an o t h er t rag i c ev en ti n Ap p el lan t ’ s l i fe wh i ch l ead s t o h i s m o o dd i s o rd er o f

d ep res s i o n. (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 6). Ap pel l an td idn o t recei ve p ro p er m ed i cal treat m en t fo r h i s d ep res s i o n s o h e s el f-m ed i cat es wi t h al co ho l an ddru g s . (RR-XXVIII; p . 6 6
- 6 8 ). Du ri n g the earl y

8 0 ' s Ap p el l an t ex p eri en ces the l o s s o f h is s eco n dch i l d , i s ab us i n g d ru g s an d al co ho l t o t reat h i s d ep res s i o n , i s wo rk i n g s p o rad ical l y , wh i ch l ead s t o a s eri es o f m i s dem ean or co n v i ct i o ns , th e au t o th eftan d t h en Ag grav at ed As s au l tcas e l ead i n g t o h i s twen t y y ear p ri s o n s en t en ce. (RR-XXVIII; p . 7 5 ). Dr. Kes s n er o p i n ed t h at Ap p el l an td ev el o p edan ab n o rm al n eed i nes s an dd ep en d en cy fo r a s ecu re rel at i o n s h i p 4 0 , t h atl eadh i m t o fal l i n l o v e wi th Sh erryWh i t e. (RRXXVIII; p . 7 8 ). Wh en th i s ab n o rm al “ n eed i n es s an dd ep en d en cy ” i s p ercei v edb y M s. Wh it e, s h e p u l l edb ack . (RR-XXVIII; p . 7 7 -7 8). Ap p el l an t , wh o was n o tb ei n g t reat edfo r h i s m o o dd i s o rd er, h ad“ l o w en erg y , l o w m o ti v at i o n , an d a fat al i s t i c at t i tu d e ab o u th i s fu tu re” react edt o h er wi t h d rawal wi t h ex trem e v i o l en ce. (RRXXVIII; p . 8 5 -8 6 ). It was Dr. Kes s n er’ s o p in io n t h atth e ev en t s th ath ap p en edi n Ap p el l an t ’ s l i fe act edas a t ri gg er fo r t h e “ rag e an dv i o l en ce” cau s i n g th i s o ffen s e are
u n l ik el y t o b e re-creat edi n a p ri s o n en v i ro n m en t . (RR-XXVIII; p . 9 4 -9 5 ). Th ereaft er, t h e Defen s e res t ed . (RR-XXVIII; p . 1 7 4 ). Th e St at e res t edan dcl o s ed
.

4 0 Appellant’s early

childhood shaming , no secure attachment to either parent, ex p osure to domestic violence, leading to the a feeling

of no safety

or security
. 4 4(RR-XXVIII; p . 1 7 4 ). STATEMENT REGARDI N G ORAL ARGUMENT A PPELLANT WA IVES ORAL ARGUM ENT QUESTI ONS PRESENTED W HETHER THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF
“ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY” VIOLATES D UE PROCES S UNDER FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AM ENDM ENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? W HETHER THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF
“ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY VIOLATES DUE COURS E OF LAW UNDER ARTICLE ONE, SECTION NINETEEN OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION? W HETHER THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF
“ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY” AS REQUIRED BY LAW WAS FUNDAM ENTAL ERROR? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND TEXAS CODE OF CRIM INAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 3 7
. 0 7 1 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND TEXAS PENAL CODE ART. 1 9
. 0 2 -1 9 .0 3 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? W HETHER THE EXCUSAL OF PROSPECTIVE JUROR 7 7 (W ILLIAM HERED) BASED ON THE STATE’ S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE (OVER DEFENSE OBJ ECTION) WAS ERROR BY THE TRIAL COURT? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M O TION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF IM PROPER AND PREJ UDICIAL EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S 4 5M O TION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF VICKI

ALEXANDER’ S UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M O TION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF THOM ESA HOLLIN’ S UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY? W HETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M O TION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF AN IM PROPER AND PREJ UDICIAL QUESTION BY THE PROSECUTOR?

POI NT OF ERROR ONE THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF “ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY VIOLATES DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AM ENDM ENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION POI NT OF ERROR TW O THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF “ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY VIOLATES DUE COURSE OF LAW UNDER ARTICLE ONE, SECTION NINETEEN OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION FACTUAL SUMMARY Th e i n dex o f i n Vo l u m e On e (I) o f t h e Cl erk ’ s Reco rdi n th i s cau s e d o es n o t l i s t b y ca p t io n h ea di n g an y

en t ry en t i t l ed“ St at e’ s No t i ce o f In t en tt o Seekth e Deat h Pen al ty ” n o r t h e p ag e n u m b er o f s u ch a d o cu m en to n a cert ai n p ag e wi t h i n t h e Sev en Vo l u m es o f Cl erk ’ s d o cu m en t s (co m p ri s in g o f o v er fi ft een h u nd redp ag es ). (CR-I; p . 1 -9 ). Fu rt h er, a co m

pu t er s earch (i n PDF fo rm at ) u s in g t h e s earch t erm s “ St at e’ s No t i ce o f In t en tt o Seekth e Deat h Pen al t y ” res u l ts i n “ n o d o cu m en tfo u n d.” (CR-I4 6VII). A carefu l rev i ew o f al l Sev en (7 ) v o l u m es o f t h e cl erk ’ s reco rdh as rev eal edn o

s u ch d o cu m en t ex is t s u n der t h i s cau s e (p er Ap p el l an tco u ns el ’ s d i l i g en ts earch o f t h e
reco rdi n th i s cau s e) as req u i redb y Art i cl es 3 4 .0 4 ; 3 5 .1 5 ; 3 5.1 6 an d3 7
. 0 7 1 o f t h e Tex as Co d e o f Cri m i n al Pro cedu re. 4 1 [CR-I-VII; p . 1 -1 5 2 9 ]
.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES Hi s t o ri cal l y , th e Tex as Co d e o f Cri m i nal Pro cedu re § 1 .1 4 (1 9 73 ) p ro v i d ed :

"

.. . No cas e i n wh i ch th e St at e s eek s th e d eat h p en al t y s h al l b e t ri edu n t i l 1 5 d ay s aft er s u ch n ot i ce i s g i v en . .." Ex p a r t e W a t ki n s , 4 8 9 S.W .2 d6 1 7 , 6 1 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 7 3 ). Cu rren t l y , Tex as Co de o f Cri m i nal Pro cedu re § 3 7.0 7 1 s ect i o n 2 ) (a) (1 ) p ro v i d es “ ...i n wh i ch th e St at e s eek s th e d eat h p en al t y ...” an d3 7 .0 71 1 s ect i o n 3 (a)(1 ) p ro v id es “
. ..If a d efen d an ti s tri edfo r a cap i t al m u rd er i n wh i ch th e
s t at e s eek s th e d eat h p en al ty ...” Fu rt h er, Tex as Co d e o f Cri m i nal Pro cedu re § 3 5 .2 5 (2 0 1 2 ) p ro v i d es ...i n ca p i ta l ca s es i n wh i ch th e s t at e's at t o rn ey h as
an no u n cedth at h e wi ll n o t... s eek t h e d ea th p en a l t

y... . See S

o r o l a v. Sta t e , 7 6 9 S.W .2 d9 2 0 , 9 2 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 9 ). Las t , “ du e p ro ces s ” an d“ due
co urs e o f l aw” co n s i d erat i o n req u i re t h ata d efen d an tb e g i v en wr i t t en n o t i ce

4 1 F urther, the record does not reflect that the Defense entered any “objection” to the failure of the State to file a written notice of “I ntent to seek the death penalty ” so any error (other than fundamental error) has not been preserved for review. Clark v. State , 365 S.W .3d 333 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2012). 4 7o f an y p u n i s h m en ten h an cem en t s . Fo r ex am p l e, wh en t h e St at e wi l l s eekan affi rm at i v e fi n d i ng th at a d ead l y weap o n was u s ed o r ex h i b i teddu ri n g t h e
co m m is s i on o f th e ch arg edo ffen se . S mi th v. Sta t e , 2 0 12 Tex . Ap p . LEXIS 1 0 0 5 6 (Tex
. Ap p . Fo rtW o rt h Dec. 6 , 2 0 1 2) ci ti n g Br o o ks v. Sta t e , 8 4 7 S.W .2 d2 4 7 , (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 3 ). Th e n o t i ce req u i rem en ti s fi rm l y ro o t ed i n fu n d am en t al p recep t s o f d u e p r o ces s an d d

ue co u rs e o

f law . See Ex p a r t e Pa t t er s o n , 7 4 0 S.W .2 d 7 6 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 7 ). Th i s Co u rt n o t ed 4 2 i n Sta te ex r el . Lyko s v. Fi n e , 3 3 0 S.W .3 d9 0 4 atp ag e 9 0 6 (Tex
. Cri m . Ap p. 2 0 1 1 ) “ M r. Green h as b een ch arg edwi t h th e cap i t al m u rd er o f Ti n a Vo , an d t h e Sta t e h a s g iven n o t i ce o f i t s i n t en t t o s eek t he d

ea th p en a l t

y . ” Th i s Co u rt h as al s o n o t edth at“ ...a cap i t al m u rd er i n d i ct m en tread s wh en th e St at e s eek s t h e d eat h p en al t y

read s ex act l y

th e s am e as wh en t he St at e d oes n o ts eekth e

4 2 Althoug h it appears to be the practice in Harris County to do so, this Court did not cited any controllingstatute or authority requiring the State to file written notice of I ntent to Seek the Death Penalty

in State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine , 330 S.W .3d 904 at pag e 906 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2011) or in Smith v. State , 297 S.W .3d 260 at pag e 266 (Tex . Crim. App. 2009) wherein the Court noted that “on Augu st 16, 2005, the State served its " Notice of I ntent to Seek the Death Penalty
. ” Other counties (Collin County ) in Tex as follow the practice to file written notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty . See Bell v. State , 2012 Tex . App. L EXI S 8995 (Tex . App. Eastland Oct. 31, 2012)

. In F ederal Court, the United States Code § 3593 (a) requires the g overnment to file written notice of I ntent to Seek the Death Penalty . See United States v. W ebster , 162 F .3d 308 (5 t h Cir. 1998).

4 8d eat h p en al t y .” St a t e ex r el . Lyko s v. Fi ne s up ra. Here, t h e fai l u re o f t he St at e

t o fi l e wri t ten n ot i ce o f t h e In t en tt o Seekth e d eat h p en al t y v i o l at ed Ap p el l an t ’ s ri g h tt o due p ro ces s u n d er t h e fed eral co ns t i tu ti o n an d h i s ri gh tt o du e co u rs e o f l aw u n der t h e Tex as Co n s ti tut i o n .

POI NT OF ERROR THREE THE STATE’ S FAILURE TO FILE W RITTEN NOTICE OF
“ INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY” AS REQUIRED BY LAW WA S FUNDAM ENTAL ERROR

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES
Iti s co m m o n p ract i ce fo r t h e St at e t o fi l e wri t t en n o t i ce o f i t s i n t en tt o s eek t h e Deat h Pen al t y

ats o m e p o i n t b efo re t ri al an di n d ep en d en to f t h e i n d ict m en t
. Sta te v. ex r el

Lyko s v. Fi n e, 3 3 0 S.W
. 3 d9 04 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p. 2 0 1 1 ). Fu n d a men t a l er r o r4 3 i s erro r s o eg reg i o u s an dcreat eds u ch h arm th atth e
accu s ed i s d ep ri v edo f a fai r an di m p art ial tri al
. Alma n z a v. Sta te , 6 8 6 S.W .2 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 5 ). Here, t h e i n d ict m en ti n th i s cas e i n Cau s e 1 4 1 4 4 21 , was ret u rn edo n J an u ary 1 5 , 2 0 1 4 , p er t h e Harri s Co u n t y Di s t ri ct Cl erk ’ s fi l e s t am

p an ds i g n atu re o f t h e fo rem ano f t he g ran djury o f th e 3 5 1 s t

4 3 Trial counsel filed no written objection nor does an oral objection appears in the record. (CR-I -IV and RR-I -XXXI X). 4 9Di st ri ctCo u rt , Rh on d a Lo we 4 4 . (CR-I; p . 1 2 ). Th e ret u rn o f t h e i n d i ct m en t

was th i rt y -th ree (3 3) d ay s b efo re t h e b eg i n n i ng o f t h e J u ry s el ect i o n p h as e o f t ri al o n Feb ru ary

1 7 , 2 0 1 4 . (RR-III; p . 3 -4 ). Atl eas to n e l o wer Co u rth as fo u n dwri t t en n o ti ce o f o t h er p en al t y en h an cem en t s t o b e “ fi rm l y ro ot edi n fu n d am en t al p recep t s o f due p ro ces s an ddu e co u rs e o f l aw.” Byrd v. Sta t e , 2 0 0 8 Tex
. Ap p . LEXIS 6 6 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 W L 4 0 5 30 0 0 (Tex . Ap p . Fo rtW o rt h Au g . 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 ). Arg u ab l y , th e St at e’ s fai l u re t o p ro vi d e wri t t en n o ti ce o f t h e In t en t t o Seekth e Deat h Pen al t y fai l u re i s s o eg reg io u s an d creat ed s uch h arm th at Ap p el l an twas d ep ri vedo f a fai r an d i m p art i al t ri al
. P OI NT OF ERROR FOUR THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO PRECLUDE THE DEATH PENALTY AS A SENTENCING OPTION AND FAILING TO FIND TEXAS CODE OF CRIM INAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 3 7 .0 7 1 UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER AUTHORITY OF JONES V. UNITED S TATES ET. AL. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES
Iti s u n co n s t i tu t i o n al fo r a l eg is latu re t o rem o ve fro m th e ju ry th e
as s es s m en to f fact s th ati n creas e t he p res cri bedran g e o f p en al t i es t o wh i ch a

4 4 At least one earlier indictment had been filed (per notation on current indictment indicated “Re-I

ndict of 1309319.”). (CR-I ; p. 12). 5 0cri m i n al d efen d an ti s ex p o s edan dth o s e fact s m us tb e es t ab li s h edb y

p ro o f b ey o nda reas o n ab l e d o ubt
. Jo n es v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 5 2 6 U.S. 2 2 7 (1 99 9 ). In Ri ng v. Ar i

z on a , 5 3 6 U.S. 5 8 4 (2 0 0 2 ), t h e Sup rem e Co u rt h el d t h at t h e ru l e
o f Ap p r en di v. New Jer

s ey, ap p l i es t o cap i t al cas es , “ Wh ere a s en t en ce o f d eat h i s au t ho ri zed on ly up o n t h e fi n d i ng of cert ai n fact s , t h o s e fact s
o p erat e as t h e f

u n c t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t o f a n e l e me n t o f a g r e a t e r o f

f e n s e . ” T h e S i x t h A me n d me n t ' s j u r y t r i a l g u a r a n t e e t h u s r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e A r i z o n a d e a t h p e n a l t y s t a t u t e ' s a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s b e t r e a t e d a s e l e me n t s , “ B e c a u s e A r i z o n a ' s e n u me r a t e d a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s o p e r a t e a s t h e f

u n c t i o n a l
e q u i v a l e n t o

f a n e l e m e n t o

f a g r e a t e r o

f f e n s e , t h e S i x t h A me n d me n t
r e q u i r e s t h e y b e f

o u n d b y a j u r y b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t
. ” R i n g v . A r iz o n a , 5 3 6 U.S. 5 8 4 (2 00 2). Here, u n d er t h e Tex as s ch em e as p ro v id edb y Art i cl e 3 7 .0 7 1, t he ju ry

s h o ul db e i n s t ru ct edth atth ey m u s t fi n d b ey o n da
reas o n ab l e d o ubtth e “ ab sen ce o f an y m it i gat i ng fact s .” Th i s co u rth as p rev i o us l y reject edth i s arg u m en t d i s t i n g ui s h i n g fact s i n ag g rav at i on o f p u n i s h m en tfro m fact s i n m i t i g at i on o f p u n i s h m en t
. Per ry v. Sta te , 1 5 8 S.W .3 d 4 3 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ). To th e ex t en tth at Per r y v. Sta t e , 1 5 8 S.W .3 d 4 3 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) an do t h er cas es are au t h ori t y ag ai n s tth i s arg u m en t , Ap p el l an treq u es t s th i s Co u rtreco n s i d er th i s i s s u e.
5 1POI NT OF ERROR FI VE THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND TEXAS PENAL CODE ART. 1 9 .0 2 -1 9.0 3 UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES
In Mu l l a n ey v. W

i l b u r , 4 2 1 U.S. 6 8 4 (1 9 7 5), t h e Un i t edSt at es Sup rem e Co u rth el dth e Du e Pro ces s cl au s e req u ires th e p ro secu t i o n t o p ro v e b ey o nda reas o n ab l e d o ubtth e ab sen ce o f th e h eat o f p as si o n o n s u d d en p ro v o cat i o n wh en th e i s s u e i s p ro p erl y p res en tedi n a h o m i ci d e cas e. Fu rt h er, i n Co ker v. Geo r g ia , 43 3 U.S. 5 8 4 (1 9 7 7 ) h el dthe d eat h p en al t y co n st i tu t es
cru el an du n u s u al p u n i s h m en tu n d er t h e Ei g htAm en d m en twh ere t here i s n o p ro p o rt i o n al i t y b et ween t h e cri m e an d t h e pu n i s h m en t. Here, t ri al co u n s el M ot i o n at t ack edth e Co n st i tu t i o n al i t y o f t h e Tex as Cap i t al Pu ni s h m en t
s ch em e, arg u i n g t h atu n d er t h e s t atu t o ry d efi n i t i o n o f m

urd er [wh ere Tex as l aw m ak es v o l u n t ary

m an s l au g h t er a m i ti g at i n g fact atp u n is h m en ti n s teado f
an el em en to f a l es ser i ncl u d edo ffen se o f v o l u nt ary m an s lau g h ter] an d t h erefo re u n der Ap

p ren di v. New Jer

s ey , 5 3 0 U.S. 4 6 6 (2 00 0 ) an du n d er a p ro p o rt i o n al i t y

rev i ew t h e i n t en ti o n al k i l li n g o f t wo i n di v i du al s i n th e s am e t ran s act i o n , b utu n d er ci rcu m s t an ces o f s ud d en p as si o n b as edo n ad eq u at e
5 2cau s e red efi nes t h e el em en t s o f t h e o ffen s e o f m u rd er b y ch aract eri zi n g th e el em en tas a fact o r t h ato n ly b ears o n p u n i s h m en tm it i gat i o n . To t h e ex ten t t h at Per r y v. St a t e , 1 5 8 S.W .3 d4 3 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) an do t h er cas es
are au th o ri t y

ag ai n s tthi s arg u m en t , Ap p el l an treq ues t s th i s Co u rtreco n si d er t h i s i ss u e. POI NT OF ERROR SI X EXCUSING PROSPECTIVE J UROR 7 7 (W ILLIAM HERED) BASED ON THE STATE’ S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE (OVER DEF ENSE OBJ ECTION) WAS ERROR BY THE COURT

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES A v en i re m em

b er i s ch al l en g eab l e fo r cau s e i f h e h as a b i as o r p reju d i ce ag ai n stth e d efen d an to r ag ai n s tth e l aw up o n wh i ch ei th er t he St at e o r t h e d efen se i s en t i t l edt o rel y . TEX. CODE CRIM . PROC. art . 3 5
. 1 6(a)(9 ). Th e p ro p o n en td oes n o t m eetthi s b u rd en u nt i l h e h as s h o wn th atthe v en i re
m em b er u n d ers t o o dthe req u i rem en t s o f t h e l aw an d co u l dn o to v erco m e h i s p reju d i ce wel l en o u g h t o fo l l o w th e l aw. Feld ma n v. Sta t e , 7 1 S.W .3 d 7 3 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ). When a v en i re m em b er’ s an s wers are am

b i g u o u s , v aci l l at i n g , u ncl ear, o r co n t rad i ct o ry , a rev i ewi n g Co u rtwi l l g i v e p art i cu l ar d eferen ce t o the t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n , h o wev er rev ers al i s warran t edfo r cl ear ab us e o f d i s cret i o n . Co l b ur n v. Sta t e , 9 6 6 S.W .2 d5 1 1 , 5 1 7 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p .
5 31 9 9 8 ). Here, arg u ab l y th e tri al co u rtab u sedi t ’ s d i s cret i on i n g ran t i n g t he St at e’ s ch al l en g e fo r cau se. Al t h o ug h p ro s pect i ve ju ro r W i l li am Heredatt i m es g av e u n cl ear an s wers , h e s t at edu n eq u i v o cal l y o n m o re t h an o n e o ccas i o n th at h e u n d ers t o o dth e req ui rem en t s o f t h e l aw an d wo u ldfo l l o w i t . Th e fo l l o wi n g
ex am p l es d em o n st rat e t h i s : Q: By M r. Go o d hart - Can y o up art i ci p at e i n s u ch a way wh ere y o u wo u l dh av e t o v o t e acco rd i n g t o th e ev i d en ce an d a p ers o n m i g htd i e, o r are y o ut el l i n g us th aty o ucan n o td o th at ? A: By M r. Hered - Itwo u ldb e real ly h ard , b u tI t h in ki f I was fu l l y co n v i n ced du ri n g th e t ri al , th atI co ul dv o t e i n ei t h er way as l o ng as I b el i ev edi t . (RR-VIII; p . 1 0 1 .) Q: By M r. Go o d hart -.As I t o ldy o uearl ier, s o m e p eo p le ju s tt el l u s: Lo o k, I ju stfo u n d t h i s p ers o n g ui l t y o f cap i t al m u rd er, I'm al way s g o i n g t o fi n d t h e p ers on a fu tu re d an ger ju s tb ecau se o f t h e fact s o f t h e cas e. W o u l dy o ud o th at ? A: By M r. Hered - Itwo u ldd ep en d o n t h e cas e fo r m e. Dep en di n g -- y o u m en t i on edthere's a wh o l e b u n ch o f d ifferen t cap it al m u rd er cas es . An d I t h i n k d ep en d i n g o n w h i ch k i n do f cas e t h atwas , m y an s wer wo u l d ch an g e. (RR-VIII; p . 1 0 6 ). Q: By M r. Tan n er- No w, wo u l d y o u b e ab l e t o fo l l o w y o u r o at h an d g i v e a co rrect an s wer as t o Sp eci al Is s u e No . 1 b as edo n t h e ev i d en ce? A: By M r. Hered -Th atev i d en ce t h in g , ag ai n , th o s e ex t rem e cas es y o u m en t i on ed , I th i n k i two ul db e p ret t y eas y . (RR-VIII; p . 1 1 4 ). Q: By M r. Tan n er- If t h e St at e p ro v edthatt o y o u , th o s e t wo th i ng s s h o u l d b e an s w ered " y es " an d" n o , " kn o wi n g thati two u ld l ead t o t h e d eat h p en al t y , wo u l d y o uan s wer t h o s e " y es , n o " kno wi n g th at , o r wo u l d y o uv i o l at e y o u r o at h an dch an g e o n e o f t h e an s wers t o as s u re t h atth e 5 4p ers on g et s l i fe i n p ri s o n ?

A: By M r. Hered - If I was co n v i n cedo n ei t h er o n e o f t h o s e, l i k e I s ai d i n o n e o f t h o s e ex t rem e cas es , then I wo u l dan s wer t h o s e qu es t i o n s t ru t h fu l l y reg ard l es s o f t h e fi n al o u tco m e. (RR-VIII; p . 1 1 7 ). Q: THE COURT- So , i n th at ci rcu m s t an ce, i f y o u h av e fo u n d t h ath e i s a fu tu re d an g er, th en th e qu es ti o n i s : Is there m i t i g at io n s u ffi ci en tt o ch an g e fro m

d eat h t o l i fe. W o u l dy ou an s wer t h at qu es t i o n tru t h fu l l y b as edo n the ev id en ce p res en t edt o y o u ? A: By M r. Hered - Yes . (RR-VIII; p . 1 1 8 ).
Vi ewi n g th es e res p o n s es i ti s arg uab l e t h ath e wo ul d fo l l o w the l aw
o v er h i s p referen ces i n fav or o f l i fe wi t h o u tp aro l e. Acco rd i ng l y , th e Co urt ab us edi t ’ s d i scret i o n i n g ran t i n g t h e St at e’ s ch al l en g e fo r cau s e.

POI NT OF ERROR SEVEN THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF IM PROPER AND PREJ UDICIAL EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE FACTUAL SUMMARY Du ri n g the t es t i m o n y

o f Vi cky Al ex an d er t he fo l l o wi n g ex ch an g e t o o k p l ace: Q: Do y o uh av e p ers o n al kn o wl ed g e o f an i n ci d en twh ere ev eryt h i n g was rem o v ed fro m

Th eres s al ’ s h ou s e? A: Yes
. Q: Ex p lai n that . Wh atd i dy o u s ee? 5 5A: J effreyrem o v edev ery t h i n g fro m h er h o u s e. Q: An dwh en we s ay ... M R. TANNER: Fo r t h e reco rdm ay we t ak e th i s wi t n es s o n v o i r d i re? THE COURT: Ok ay . M R. TANNER: Th an ky o u . BY M R. TANNER: Yo u ’ re s ay i n g th atJ effreyrem o vedev ery t h i n g fro m th e h o u s e? Di d y o u s ee t h atwi t h y o u r o wn ey es ? A: Si r? Q: I’ m s o rry ? A: Whatd idy o u s ay ? Q: Di dy o us ee t h atwi t h y o u r o wn ey es , h im rem o v e ev ery t h i ng fro m th e h o u s e? A: No
. M R. TANNER: J ud g e, we’ re g o i n g t o as kth atb e s t ri ck enfro m th e reco rdan dth e ju ry

b e as kedt o d i sreg ardth at co m m en t
. THE COURT: Su s t ai n th e o b j ect i on . In s t ru ctth e ju ry

t o d i sreg ard t h e l as ts t at em en tb y

th e wi t n es s. M R. TANNER: Fo r t h e reco rd , we m ov e fo r a m i s tri al
. THE COURT: Th atwi l l b e d en ied . (RR-XXIII; p . 2 0 2 -2 0 3 ).

STANDARD OF REVI EW

5 6Th i s Co u rtrev i ews a t ri al co u rt 's d en i al o f a m ot i o n fo r m i s t ri al fo r an

ab us e o f d i s cret i o n . Ar ch i e v. Sta t e , 3 4 0 S.W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 3 8 -3 9 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p. 2 0 1 1 ). Th u s , th i s Co u rtm us tup h o ldth e t ri al co u rt 's ru li n g i f i ti s wi th i n th e
zo ne o f reas o n ab le d i sag reem en t
. Ma r ch b an ks v. Sta t e , 3 41 S.W .3 d5 5 9 , 5 6 1 (Tex . Ap p .— Fo rtW o rt h 2 01 1 , n o p et
. ). A m is t ri al i s n eces s ary i n ex t rem e ci rcu m s t an ces wh en the p reju d i ce cau s edb y an i m p ro p er q u es t i o n an d an s wer i s i n cu rab l e. W

h i tn ey v. S t a te , 3 96 S.W
. 3 d 6 96 (Tex . Ap p .— Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 1 3 , p et . ref'd ) h o l d in g t hata m is t ri al i s ap p ro p ri at e wh en an erro r i s s o p reju d i ci al t h atex p en d i tu re o f fu rth er t i m e wo u l db e fu t i le.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES Th e Tex as Ru l es o f Evi d

en ce p ro v id e t h e b as i c fram ewo rkfo r an al y s i s reg ard i n g wh et h er an ext ra n eo u s o f f en s e i s ad m i s s ib l e. E

vi d en ce i s 2 rel ev an t 2 t h ath as 2 an y

t en d en cy t o m ak e t h e ex i s t en ce o f an y fact thati s o f co n s equ en ce t o th e d et erm i n at i on o f t h e act i o n m ore p ro bab l e o r l es s p ro bab l e t h an i t wo u l d b e wi t h o u tth e evi d

en ce . 2 TEX. R. EVID. 4 01
. 2 Al l rel ev an t evi den ce i s ad m i ss i b l e, ex cep tas o th erwi s e p ro v i d edb y . . . th es e ru l es . . . . [E] v i d en ce wh i ch i s n o trel ev an ti s i n ad m i s s i b l e. 2 TEX. R. EVID. 4 0 2
. Ru l e 4 0 4 p ro v i d es :

2 evi d en ce o f o t h er cri m es , wro n g s o r act s i s n o tad m i s s i b l e t o p ro v e t h e

5 7ch aract er o f a p ers o n i n o rd er t o s h o wth ath e act edi n co n fo rm i ty th erewi t h
. 2 TEX. R. EVID. 4 0 4 (b

)
. E vi d en ce of 2 o t h er cri m es , wro n g s o r act s 2 m ay b e ad m i ss i b l e i f i th as rel ev an ce ap artfro m i t s t en d en cy 2 t o p ro ve t he ch aract er o f a p ers o n i n o rd er t o s h o w act i o n i n co nfo rm i t y t h erewi t h
. 2 TEX. R. EVID. 4 0 4 (b ). Ja cks o n v. Sta te, 3 2 0 S.W .3 d 8 7 3 (Tex . Ap p.— T ex ark an a 2 0 1 0 , p et
. ref’ d ). Ev i d en ce o f ex tran eo u s o ffen ses al s o m ay b e ad m i t t eddu ri n g th e p u n i s h m en tp h as e i f t h e t ri al co u rtd eem s th e ev i d en ce rel ev an t t o s en t en ci n g . S ee T ex . Cri m . Pro c. Co d e An n . art . 3 7 .0 7 § 3 (a)(1 ) (Vern o n 2 0 0 5 ). Wh en
ev id en ce o f an ex t ran eo u s o ffen s e i s u s ed i n th e p u ni s h m en tp h as e o f t ri al fo r t h e l i m i t edp u rp o s e o f as s es s i n g p u n i sh m en t , th e ev i den ce m u s t p ro v e b ey o n d
a reas o n ab l e d o ub tth atth e d efen d an tco m m i t t edth e act al l eg ed
. Id . If s u ch
ev id en ce i s i n t ro du ced , th e t ri al co u rt m u s tg i v e t h e ju ry

an i n s t ru ct i o n reg ard i n g th e reas o n ab l e d o ub ts t an d ardo f p ro o f. Id
. § 3 (b ) ; Hu i z a r v. Sta t e, 1 2 S .W .3 d 4 79, 4 8 4 (Tex. Cr i m. Ap

p . 2 0 0 0 ). In g en eral an i ns t ru ct i o n t o d i s reg ardu s u al ly

cu res p reju d i ce fro m

i m p ro p er referen ce t o ex t ran eo u s
o ffen s e. Ova l le v. Sta te, 1 3 S.W .3 d7 7 4 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 00 0 )

. Tes t i m o n y referri n g t o ext r a neo u s o

ff en s es can b e ren d ered h arm l es s b y an i n s tru ct i o n t o d i s reg ard , u n l es s i t i s s o cl earl y cal cu l at edt o i n fl am e t h e m i n d s o f t he ju ry
an d i s o f s u ch a n atu re as t o s u g g es tth e i m p os s ib i l i t y

o f wi t h d rawi n g th e 5 8i m

p res s i on p ro du ced
. Kemp v. Sta t e , 8 4 6 S.W .2 d 2 8 9 , 3 0 8 (Tex
. Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 2 ); Hu f f ma n v. Sta t e , 7 4 6 S.W .2 d2 1 2 , 2 1 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 8 ). Here, al t h o u gh th e Co u rtg av e th e ju ry “ an i n s t ru ct i o n t o d i s reg ard ” Vi ck i Al ex an d er, t es ti m o n y

reg ard i n g Ap p el l an t ’ s ex tran eo u s o ffen s e ev id en ce was arg u ab l y , “ cl earl y

cal cu l at edt o i n fl am e t h e m in d s o f t h e ju ry ” an dwas i n t en d edt o s o p reju d ice t h e ju ry th ati twas i m

p o s s i b le t o wi t hd raw t h e i m p res s i on p ro du ced - t h at Ap p el lan th as a h i s to ry o f p rey i n g o n wo m en . Th e Co u rts h o u l dh av e g ran t eda m i s t ri al
.

POI NT OF ERROR EI GHT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF VICKI ALEXANDER’ S UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY

FACTUAL SUMMARY Du ri n g the t es t i m o n y

o f Vi cky Al exa n d

er t h e fo l l owi n g ex ch an g e t o o k p l ace: BY M S. EM M O NS: Let m e s ho w y o uwh ath as b een m ark ed fo r i d en t i fi cat io n p u rp o s es as St at e’ s Ex h i b i t3 2 8. W i t h o u ts ay i n g wh ati ti s d o y ou reco g n i ze t h i s ? A: Yes , I d o . Q: An dh o w d o y o ureco gn i ze i t ?
5 9A: It ’ s J effrey ’ s l et t er h e wro t e t o m e. Q: Do y o ureco g n i ze h i s h an d wri t i n g ? A: Yes
. Q: An dy o ureco g n i ze t hatt o b e J effreyPrev os t ’ s h an dwri t i n g ? A: Yes
. Q: An di s t h atth e o ri g i n al l et t er? A: Yes , i ti s . BY M S. EM M O NS: Yo ur Ho n o r, atth i s t i m e I wo u l d o ffer St at e’ s Ex h ib i t3 2 8 , t en d er i t t o Defen s e Co u n s el an y Ob j ect i o n s . M R. TANNER: No o bject i o ns . THE COURT: St at e’ s Ex h i b i t3 2 8 i s ad m i t t ed
. M S. EM MONS: Perm i s s i o n t o p ub l i s h ? THE COURT: Al ri g h t
. (RR-XXIII; p . 2 07 -2 0 9 ). Q: ....So y o urecei v edth i s l et t er, wh atd i dy o uth i n k ? A: Yo uwan tm e t o t el l y o uwh atI h o n es t l y th i n k Q: Yes , m a’ am . M R. TANNER: Ex cu se m e. I’ m g o i n g t o o bject , as rel ev an cy J u d g e. THE COURT: Ov er-ru l ed . Yo um ay an s wer t h e qu es t i o n . 6 0A: When I recei v edth e l et ter, I was v ery , v ery , an g ry . An d wh en h e p u ti n th e l et ter h e kn ew h e was g o i ng t o g etth e d eat h p en al t y , an dI s ai d : I wan t y o ut o g eti tt o o . M R. TANNER: I’ m

g o i n g t o o b

jectth at ...th at ’ s n on res p o ns i v e. THE COURT: Su s t ai n ed
. M R. TANNER: ...An dwe wo ul d as kth e Co u rtt o n ow i n s t ru ct

t h e ju ry t o d is reg ardh er co m

m en tab o u twh at s h e wan ts t o h ap pen t o th e Defen d an t
. THE COURT: Th e jury wi l l d i s reg ardth e l as ts t at em en tb y t h e wi t n es s. M R. TANNER: ...W e m o v e fo r a m i s t ri al
. THE COURT: Th atwi l l b e d en ied . (RR-XXIII; p . 2 0 8 -2 0 9 ). ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES Wh en i ti s ap p aren tthatan o b ject i o n ab l e ev en t attri al i s s o emo t i o n a l l y i n f l amma t o r y t h at cu rat i v e i n s t ru ct i o n s are n o tl ik el y t o p rev en t t h e ju ry b ei n g
u n fai rl y p reju di cedag ai n s tthe d efen d an t , a m o t i o n fo r m i s t ri al s h o ul d b e g ran t ed
. Kemp v. St at e , 8 4 6 S.W .2 d2 8 9 , 3 0 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p .1 9 92 ). In d et erm i n i n g wh et h er an ex cep t i o n ex is t s t o th e g en eral ru l e t hatan i n s tru ct i o n
ren d ers th e erro r h arm l es s , th i s Co u rtm u s tl o o katth e p art i cu l ar fact s o f each
cas e. W i l l i a m s v. St a t e , 6 4 3 S.W .2 d1 3 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 2 ). Fo r
ex am p l e, i n Ro b i n et te v. St a te , 8 1 6 S.W
. 2 d 8 1 7 (Tex . Ap p .--Eas t lan d1 9 9 1 , n o
6 1p et .), th e el ici tedt es t i m o ny th atth e accu s edh adb rag g edab o utk i l l i n g a p o l i ce
o ffi cer, was s o i n fl amm at o ry th ata ju ry

i ns t ru ct i o n t o d i s reg ardd i dn o t cu re t h e erro r. Th e co u rtrem an dedt o th e tri al co urtfo r a n ew t ri al
. In Hi l l v. Sta t e , 8 1 7 S.W .2 d8 1 6 (Tex . Ap p .– Eas t l an d1 9 9 1 , p et . ref'd ) th e St at e's wi tn es s t es t i m o n y (t h ati n fo rm an t was d eal i n g h ero i n) was s o i n fl amm at ory as t o b e
u n co r r ect a b l e b y

a ju dg e's o rd er t o t he ju ry t o d i s reg ardth e s t at em en t . Th e
cau s e was rem an d edfo r a n ew tri al . Here, Vi cky Al ex an d er’ s t es t i m o n y (i n t erp ret i n g Ap p el l an t ’ s Let t er- St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 3 2 8 ) an dd es cri bi n g i t ’ s
co nt en t , 4 5 was equ al ly

u n co rrect ab l e b y

a ju d g e’ s o rd er t o th e jury t o d i s reg ard h er s t at em en t . Th is ev i d en ce (s u g g es t in g Ap pel l an tkn o ws h e wi l l g etth e d eat h p en al t y

an d hi s o wn s i s t er wan t s h i m t o g eti t as wel l ) i s s o emo ti o n a l l y i n f l amma t o r y t h at cu rat i v e i n s t ru ct i o n s are n o tl ik el y t o p rev en t t h e ju ry fro m b ei n g u n fai rl y

p reju di cedag ai n s tth e d efen d an t . Th e t ri al co u rts h o u ldh av e g ran t eda m is t ri al
. POI NT OF ERROR NI NE

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M O TION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER

4 5 Ms. Alex ander testified: “When I received the letter, I was very , very , ang ry , and when he put in the letter he knew he was going to get the death penalty...I want you to get it too .”(RR-XXI I I ; p. 208-209). Appellant’s letter actually stated: “...I ’m sure they will seek the death penalty ...I t is only

a matter on time before they execute me or send me to a mental hospital .” (State’s Ex hibit 328; RR-XXXI I ; p. 94). 6 2THE ADM ISSION OF THOM ESA HOLLINS UNRESPONSIVE AND PREJ UDICIAL TESTIM ONY FACTUAL SUMMARY Du ri n g the t es t i m o n y

o f Th o mes a Ho l l i n s t h e fo ll owi n g ex ch an g e
o ccu rred : M S. EM MONS: ...An dwh atd i d s h e d o t o try t o p ro t ecth ers el f, t o s ho w th ats h e was n’ t s caredo f h i m ? A: Sh e s h o t ath i m . Q: Becau s e s h e fel ts h e h adt o p ro tect h ers el f, ri g h t ? A: Ital l d ep en d s o n th e s i tu at i o n . M R. TANNER: I’ m

g o i n g t o o b

jectth e p ro s ecu to r s t at in g th e reas o n i n g o n wh y

s h e th in k s th e Defen dan t ’ s m o t h er s ho ta g u n ath i m . THE COURT: Su s t ai n ed
. M R. TANNER: An das kth atth e juro rs b e i n s t ru ct ed t o d i s reg ardth e

l as ts t at em en t
. THE COURT: Th e ju ry wi l l d i s reg ardth e l as ts t at em en tb y th e p ro s ecu t o r. M R. TANNER: Th an ky o u . An d we m o v e fo r a m i st ri al
. THE COURT: Th at ’ s d en i ed . (RR-XXVI; p . 7 9 ).

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES Ap p el l an tci tes t h e s am e au t h o ri t y as p rev i o u s l y

l is t edu n d er P o i n t

o f 6 3Er ro r

Ei gh t . Here, t h e p reju d i ci al an d i m p ro p er q u es t io n b y

the p ro s ecu t o r, i m p l y i n g th atAp p el l an t ’ s m o t h er was i n fear o f Ap p el l an tan d t h erefo re s h o t ath i m wi t h a g un , i s arg u ab l y s o i n fl amm at o ry

as t o b e u nco r r ect ab l e b y a ju d g e's o rd er t o th e jury

t o d i s reg ardthe s t at em en t . Iti s equ al l y p o ss i b le Ap p el l an t ’ s m o t h er h adan g er m an ag em en tan di m p u l s e i s s u es l ead i ng h er t o fi re a g u n at h er s o n . Th e Co u rts h o u l dh av e g ran t eda m i s t ri al
. POI NT OF ERROR TEN THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’ S M OTION FOR A M ISTRIAL AFTER THE ADM ISSION OF A PREJ UDICIAL QUESTION BY THE PROSECUTOR

FACTUAL SUMMARY Du ri n g the t es t i m o n y

o f Lan e Herk o l tz t h e fo ll o wi ng ex ch an g e o ccu rred : BY M R. GOODHART: Q: “ ....I th i n kth ey t each et hi cs n o w . BY M R. HERKOLTZ: A: Th ey d o. BY M R. GOODHART: Q: Th ey reas o n fo r t h ati s b ecau s e o f b ri b ery . BY M R. HERKOLTZ: A: Co rrect
. BY M R. GOODHART: Q: Th ere’ s a h i gh i n ci den ce o f b ri b ery o f p ri s o n g u ard s, co rrect i o n al o ffi cers , i n s i d e TDC b ecau s e y o u ’ re 4 7 t h o u t o f 5 0 St at es ...” BY M R. CORNELIUS: I’ m g o i n g t o o b

jectt o th i s as n o tb ei n g rel ev an tt o th e i s s ue i n th e cas e, y o u r Ho n o r. 6 4THE COURT: Su s t ai n ed
.

BY M R. CORNELIUS: An das kth e ju ry b e i n s t ru ct edt o d i sreg ardi t
. BY M R. GOODHART: J u d g e, i tg o es t o the cred ib i l i t y o f t h i s wi t n es s as t o h i s u n d erl y i n g t h o ug h t p ro ces s as t o h o w h e ju stcl as s ifi edth i s m an , I m ean , i f h e d o es n ’ tu n ders t an d wh ati s g o in g o n i n th e p ri s o n s y s t em , h o w can h e t el l u s , th i s jury wh atth e cl as s i fi cat i o n s y s tem i s . THE COURT: I s u s t ai n edthe o b j ect i on . As k an o t h er qu es t i o n . BY M R. CORNELIUS: An das kth e ju ry b e i n s t ru ct edt o d i sreg ardi t
. THE COURT; Th e jury wi l l d i s reg ardth e l as ts t at em en tb y t h e p ro secu t o r. BY M R. CORNELIUS: M o v e fo r a m i s tri al
. THE COURT; Den i ed . (RR-XXVII; p . 6 4 -6 5). THE COURT: Th e jury wi l l d i s reg ardth e l as ts t at em en tb y t h e p ro secu t o r. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES Ap p el l an tci tes t h e s am e au t h o ri t y as p rev i o u s l y

l is t edu n d er P o i n t

o f Er ro r Ei gh t . Here, t h e p reju d i ci al an d i m p ro p er q u es t i o n b y

th e p ro s ecu t o r, i m p l y i n g th atthe Tex as Pri s o n Sy s t em i s s o co rrup tdu e t o b ri b ery , th at Ap p el l an t ’ s i s a g reat er d an g er t o p ri s on g u ard s b ecau s e t h e s y s t em o f cl as s i fy i ng i nm at es i s n o t rel i ab l e, i s arg u ab l y s o i n fl amm at o ry

as t o b e
6 5u n co r r ect a b l e b y a ju dg e's o rd er t o t he ju ry t o d i s reg ardth e s t at em en t . Th e Co u rts h o u l dh av e g ran t eda m i s t ri al
. CONCLUSI ON Ap p el l an t ’ s cas e s h o u l db e rev ers ed an d rem an d ed fo r a n ew t ri al
. Res p ect fu l l y s ub m i t t ed
. __/s/____________________ DOUGLAS M. DURHAM State B ar No: 06278450 2800 Post Oak B lvd. Ste. 4100 Houston, Tex as 77056 (832) 390-2252 Telephone (832) 390-2350 F ax APPEL LANT’S COUNSEL J EF F REY KEI TH PREVOST

6 6CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

I h ereb y cert ify th ata t ru e an dco rrect co py o f t h e ab o v e an dfo reg o i n g Ap p el l an t 's Bri ef was s erv edo n As s i s tan t Cri m i n al Di s tri ctAt t o rn ey b y h an d d el i v ery atth e Co u rto f Ap p eal s m ai l b o x fo r t h e Harri s Co u n t y Di s t ri ct At to rn ey o n th i s 5 t h d ay o f Feb ru ary 2 0 1 5
.

_ / S/

__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ DOUGLAS M . DURHAM

6 7CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I h ereb y cert i fy thatp urs u an tt o Tex
. R. Of Ap p . Pro cedu re 9 .4 (1 )(3 ), t h atth e n u m

b er o f wo rd s i n t h i s Bri ef i s l es s th an3 7 ,5 0 0 wo rd s t o wi t : 1 6 ,9 5 9
wo rd s , i n co m

p l i an ce wi th Tex . R. Of Ap p . Pro cedu re, 9 (i )(2 )(B) o n th is th e 5 t h d ay o f Feb ru ary

2 0 1 5
.

_

_ __/ S/

__ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ DOUGLAS M . DURHAM

6 8