T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.03(a) (6) ( West 1990). 1 

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

OF TE XAS
AP -75,589
JA M ES EU G EN E BIGBY , A ppe lla nt

v . THE S TATE O FTEXAS ONDI RE CT AP P EA L F RO M CAUSE NO. 0329813D IN THE 3 CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT RD TA RR AN T C OU NT Y
C OCHRAN , J ., de live re d th e o p in io n o f th e u n a n im o u s C o u rt. O P I N I O N
A ppel l antw as convi ct ed i n M ar ch of 1991 of ca pi t al m ur der
. T he evi dence s how ed 1
t hathe had ki l l ed t hr ee f r i ends ( pl us t he i nfant s on of one of t hem) be caus e he be l i eved that t h e ywe r e c o n s p i r i n g wi t h F r i t o - La y t o a v o i d p a y i n g h i m f o ra wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i m. T h e ju ry a n sw e re d th e sp e c ial iss u e s a f f irm a tiv e ly , a n d th e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d a p p e llan t toBI GB Y – 2

T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 3 7. 07 1(b) (We st 1 99 0) . Unle ss o the rw iseindic ate d, a ll 2 ref ere nces to Ar

ticles ref er to the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. Bi gb yv . S tate , 892 S.W .2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). 3 Bigby v. D retke , 402 F.3d 551 (5 Cir. 2005) (rever sing de ath sentenc e base d upon Pe nr y 4 th claim that punishment-phase j ury instructions prevente d the jury from ac ting upon his mitigating evidenc e and remandingfor a new tria l on punishment). d e a th
. A p p e llan t’s co n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e w e re a f f irm e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, b u t h is d e a th 2 3

se n ten c e w a s la ter v a c a ted b yth e U n ited S tate s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F if

th C irc u it. 4 A pp el l ant w as r et ri ed o n p un i shm ent and ag ai n sentenced to death
. T h is app eal foll ow s. A f ter revi ew i ng app el l ant’ s fi ft een p oint s of err or, w e fi nd t hem t o b e w i t ho ut m eri t. C ons equent l y , w e af

fi r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm entand s ent ence of dea t h. I n poi ntof err orone, appel l ant cl ai m s t he t r i al cour ter r ed byover r ul i ng hi s chal l enge forcaus e aga i ns tvenirep er s on K ar en Seagr oves . H e cont ends t hatM s . Seagr oves w as chal l engea bl e for caus e becaus e (1) s he w oul d vot e t o as s es s t he dea t h penal t yi f s he bel i eved appel l antact ed del i ber at el y , and (2) sh e d i d notbel i eve ther e w oul d be anym i t i gat i ng evi dence t hatw oul d j us t i fya “y es ” ans w ert o t he m i t i gat i on i s s ue once capi t al m ur derw as pr oven. D ur i ng i ni t i al voi r di r e by t he St at e, t he pr os ecut orexpl ai ned t o M s . Seagr oves t hat t he pr ocee di ng w oul d be for puni s hm entonl y , t hatappel l anthad al r eadybeen c onvi ct ed of capi t al m ur der , and t hat w het her t he death penal t y w oul d be i m pos ed w oul d be bas ed on t he

e v id e n c e p re se n ted . M s. S e a g ro v e s in d ica ted th a t s h e u n d e rsto o d , a n d a g re e d th a t sh e c o u ldBI GB Y – 3

fol l ow t he l aw and ans w ert he ques t i ons . M s . Seagr oves cont i n u ed to ag ree t hats he

u n d e rsto o d a n d c o u ld f

o llo w th e law a s th e p ro se c u to r e x p lain e d th e d e tails a n d re q u ire m e n ts foreac h of t he s peci al i s s ues . She agr eed thats he w oul d not au tom ati ca l l yans w ert he deli berat eness i ssue “y es, ” b u t w ou l d b ase t he an sw er on t he ev i den ce present ed. M s. S ea g rov es m aintaine d that sh e w o u ld also req u ir e the S tat e to m ee t i ts bu rde n o n the f u ture danger ous nes s i s s ue. Fi nal l y , s he i ndi cat ed t hats he ( 1) under s t ood t he mi t i gat i on i s s ue, ( 2)

w oul d fol l ow t he l aw and t he i ns t r uct i ons , and ( 3) w oul d bas e her ans w er on t he evi dence
. M s . Seagr oves ’ pos i t i on beca m e l es s cl eard u ri n g defe ns e couns el ’ s voi rdi r e. A pp el l ant poi nts t o port i on s of M s. S eagrov es’ dis cussi on i nd i cat i ng t hat she w ou l d im po se th e d e a th p e n a lty o n c e sh e d e ter m in e d th a t th e a c c u se d h a d m u rd e re d tw o p e o p le d e lib e ra tely and t hathe w oul d be a f ut ur e dange r , r egar dl es s of w hatt he miti g at i on evi dence s how ed. W hen def

ens e couns el chal l enged he r , t he t r i al j udge sai d t hat he t hought t hat M s . Seagr oves beca m e s om ew hatconfus ed, and he ga ve t he St at e t he oppor t uni t yt o q u esti o n heragai n. W h e n re - q u e s t i o n e d b yth e p ro s e c u to r, M s . S e a g ro v e s a g re e d th a t “ n o th in g is a u to m a tic ,” and t hat t he j ur y ’ s ans w er s had t o be bas ed on t he evi dence pr es ent ed. She agr eed thats he

w oul d r equi r e t he St at e t o pr ove t he fi rst t w o i s s ues , w oul d keep a n open mi nd on t he

m i t i gati on i ssue, and w ou l d n ot d e c id e it u nti l aft er heari ng al l of the evidence. S he als o
s t at ed t hat s he w as confus ed dur i ng voi r di r e by defe ns e couns el w hen s he said that s he

w oul d aut om at i cal l ydi s r egar d m i t i gat i ng evi dence
. D es pi t e s om e of her statem ent s m ade dur i ng ques t i oni ng bydefe ns e couns el , M s . Seagr oves ’ voi rdi r e as a w hol e r efl ect s t hats heBI GB Y – 4

Se eRusse au v . S

tate , 171 S.W .3d 871, 879-80 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005) (g iving de ference 5 to trial court whe n prospec tive juror’s a nswers a re va cillating, unc lear , or contra dictory ). w oul d be fa i r , fol l ow t he l aw and t he i ns t r uct i ons , keep an open mi nd, and ans w ert he i s s ues bas ed on t he evi dence pr es ent ed. T he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on in d eny i ng appel l ant ’ s chal l enge f

orcaus e. Poi ntof err orone i s over r ul ed.

5 I n poi nt s of err ort w o and t hr ee, appel l antcl ai m s t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed bydeny i ng hi s chal l enges for caus e agai ns t veni r eper s ons R andol ph M y er s and G eor ge D avi s s on on t he gr ound t hatt heyw oul d eac h consi dert he cos tof pr i s on hous i ng and over cr ow di ng for

s o m e o n e in p ri s o n f

o r l if e a s v a lid f

a c to rs in a n s w e ri n g th e s p e c ia l is s u e s . A ppel l antpoi nt s t o t he fol l ow i ng por t i on of M r . M y er s ’ voi rdi r e: [D ef en se c o u n sel]. W ell , that b ri n g s to m ind – an d if y o u fe el t h is w ay , that’s fi ne. I f y ou don’ tt hat ’ s fi ne. S o m e p e o p le s a y , y o u k n o w , b e c a u se life in p riso n a n d th e d e a th p e n a ltya re th e tw o o p tio n s in a c a p ital m u rd e r c a se , ju st b e c a u se o f m yo v e ra ll v iew o f it, I a m g o in g to
. . . co n sid e r[ ] th e f in a n c ial c o sts o f

h o u sin g th is in d iv id u a l if w e re a c h a life se n ten c e b e c a u se I k n o w it’s g o in g to c o st a cons i der abl e amount of m oney , and I ’ m j us tgoi ng t o – as a ci t i zen, I ’ m goi ng t o t a k e t h a ti n t o a c c o u n t i n a n s w e r i n g t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . D o yo u f e e l t h a tw a y? [M y er s ]
. T hatw oul d – agai n, t hat ’ s m ybel i ef, and – and , y o u k n ow , agai n, w i t h no – not hi ng t o – t o pr oces s , I w o u ld say t hatw oul d be a c or r ect stat em en t.
. . . If the re’s circu m stan ce s the re tha t I ’m n o t aw are o f, ag ain, I’m goi ng t o bas e i ton t he dat a I r ece i ve. . . . and I ’ m nots ay i ng byanym eans t hat t her e s houl dn’ tbe a l i fe s ent ence even a vail ab le, butI ’ m s ay i ng, t hat , y ou know , i n a l otof i ns t ance s I t hi nk w e’ ve gone – w e’ ve got t oo m anyof t hos e, a n d th e re f

o re w e ’v e g o t o v e rp o p u late d p riso n s a n d a n iss u e th a t w e ’v e g o t to deal w i t h, and i tm aynotbe t he deat h penal t y . I t m ay be som et hi ng el s e, but w e’ ve gotan i s s ue t her e. T hat ’ s w hatI w as t r y i ng t o s ay–BI GB Y – 5

Q
. W e ll, I do n ’t

– I did n ’t th in k y o u ’re tellin g m e y o u w o u ld v o te th e d e a th penal t y s t r i ct l y onl ybeca us e i tcos t s m oney , m or e moneyt o hous e peopl e for l i fe, but I t hi nk w hat y ou pr obabl y s ai d her e, i t w oul d be a f ac tor i n y our decis i on -m aking i n an sw eri ng t hese qu est i on s. A
. A b s o l u t e l y. A p p e llan t ch a llen g e d M r. M y e rs f o r c a u se o n th e g ro u n d th a t h e w o u ld f a c to r in to h is

ans w er s on t he s peci al i s s ues t he costof t he pr i s on s y s t em and housi ng i nm at es . T he pr os ecut or ar gued t hat M r . M y er s had never been t ol d t hatcons i der at i on of t hos e cos t s w as i m pr oper , and, t her efor e, he coul d notbe cha l l enged f orcaus e on t hos e grounds
. T he t r i al

cour tover r ul ed appe l l ant ’ s chal l enge f orcaus e. A ppel l antpoi nt s t o t he fol l ow i ng por t i on of M r . D avi s s on’ s voi rdi r e as evi dence t hat he w as uncons t i t ut i onal l ybi as ed: [ D e f e n se c o u n se l]
. B e c a u se o n e – o n e re a so n I a sk y o u a b o u t th is, y o u sa id s om eone ha s t o s uppor tt hatl i fe, and a l otof fol ks fee l t hi s w ay . T heys ay , y ou k n o w , l i f e i n t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y, t h a tc o s t s m o n e y. [D avis son]. Itdo es. Q . A n d so m e p e o p le h a v e e v e n s e e n sto rie s o r a rticle s o n w h a t itc o sts to hous e s om eone i n pr i s on. A
. S om et hing l i ke $ 32 , 00 0 a y ear. I m ean, I c a n ’tl i e t o y ou , som et i m es I re se n t th a t f

a c t. Q
. W el l , I m ean, t hat ’ s fi ne bec aus e y ou’ r e a t axpay erand – and that ’ s m oney

– m o n e y y o u c o n trib u te w ith y o u r c h e c k , y o u k n o w , e v e ry tim e y o u g e t p a id and s o for t h. S o m e p e o p le f

e e l th is w a y . T h e ysa y , w e ll, lo o k , b e c a u se it d o e s c o st, i t ’ s nota che ap pr opos i t i on t o confi ne s om ebodyi n pr i s on fo r li fe, t hatt heyBI GB Y – 6

w oul d fac t ori nt o t hei rj udgm enti n ans w er i ng t hes e ques t i ons – A
. B utt he pay off i s , i s t hat s om et i m es i t ’ s bet t ert o payt o keep thatper s on out of s oci et yt han i ti s t o. . . gi ve t hem an ear l yr el eas e. Q . O k a y . A ll righ t. I j u s t wa n t t o s e e i f y o u s h a r e t h i s v i e w b e c a u s e we h a v e h a d s o me peopl e t el l us , w el l , l ook beca us e of mydi s l i ke of the cos tof t hi s l i fe- i n- pr i s on deal , beca us e i ti s s o expens i ve and I ’ ve gott o hel p foott he bi l l , t hatI am goi ng t o fac t ort hati n t he ans w er s of t hes e ques t i ons t hatw e’ ve be en goi ng overatl eas ts om e. A
. O k a y. Q
. D o yo u f

e e l t h a tw a y? A
. I tm i ghtbe fa ct or ed i n s om e. Q . O k a y . B e c a u se th e – th e law e x p e c ts ju ro rs n o t to d o th a t. A. Ri g h t
. I k n o w. Q
. I t s ay s , w e don’ t w ant t o deci de w het her s om eone l i ves or di es bas ed on a d o llar- a n d -c e n ts q u e stio n . W e d o n ’t w a n t ju ro rs d o in g th a t. W e w a n t th e m to ans w er t he s e q u e s t i o n s b a s e d o n e v i d e n c e a n d n o t f a c t o r i n , wel l , i f we go a h e a d a n d e x e c u t e h i m , w e d o n ’ th a v e t o p a y a l l t h i s m o n e y. A . R ig h t. Q . S o m e p e o p le s a y , I’m n o t su re I c o u ld d o th a t. I’d p ro b a b lyf a c to r it in s om e. D o yo u f

e e l t h a tw a y? A
. P e r h a p s . I m e a n , yo u a s k e d f o rh o n e s t y. Q
. N o – and t hat ’ s exac t l y w hat I w ant y ou t o do. I t hi nk y ou hel d y ourhand up aboutan i nch i ndi cat i ng –BI GB Y – 7

Se llsv . S tate , 121 S.W .3d 748, 758-59 (Te x . Crim. App. 2003). 6 Id. at 759. 7 Id. 8 A . It’s lik e I sa id , I m e a n , y o u k n o w , y o u h a v e to m a k e in v e stm e n ts to m i t i gat e r i s ks everyday
. I m ean, t hat ’ s w hys om e of us have a l ar m s on our hom es , and, y o u know , put t i ng s om eone i n pr i s on forl i fe, t hatw oul d be an i n v e s t m e n ti n m i t i g a t i n g r i s k f o rt h e i rf u t u r e a c t i o n s i n s o c i e t y. Q
. I t hi nk y ou hel d up y ourfi nger s w i t h an i nch gap. W as t hati ndi cat i ng t hat y o u w o u ld f

a c to r i t in to th e a n sw e rs o f th e q u e stio n s, b u t itw o u ld b e a sm a ll

– A
. Y es. Q . – o n e -in c h o f

w h a tev e r le n g th w e ’re talk in g a b o u t? A . R ig h t. T he t r i al cour tover r ul ed appe l l ant ’ s chal l enge a gai ns t M r . D avi s s on forcaus e, s t at i ng t hat al t hough M r . D avi s s on i ndi cat ed t hatt he cos ti s s ue “mi ghtcome i nt o pl ay , ” he t es t i fi ed t hat he coul d bas e hi s ans w er s on t he evi dence
. “A defe ndantm aypr oper l ychal l enge f or caus e a pr os pect i ve j ur orw ho has a bi as or pr ej udi ce a gai ns tany phas e of t he l aw upon w hi ch he i s ent i t l ed t o r el y . ” W hen r evi ew i ng 6 a g ran t o r d en ial o f a ch all en g e fo r c au se, w e loo k at th e en ti re rec o rd to d eterm ine if th ere is su f f icie n t e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e ru lin g . “ T h e tes t is w h e th e r th e b ias o r p re ju d ice w o u ld 7

su b sta n tiallyim p a ir th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r’s a b ili ty to c a r r y o u t h is o a th a n d in stru c tio n s in

acc or dance w i t h t he l aw . ” B efor e a ve ni r eper s on can be excus ed forcaus e on t hi s bas i s , t he 8BI GB Y – 8

Id. 9 Id. 10 l aw m us tbe expl ai ned t o hi m and he mustbe as ked w het herhe coul d fol l ow t hatl aw regar dles s of hi s personal view s. T he propon ent of a chall eng e for cause onl y m e e ts h is 9 bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hatt he cha l l enge i s p roperonl yi f he s how s t hatt he veni r eper s on under s t ood t he r equi r ement s of t he l aw and coul d notover come hi s pr ej udi ce w el l enough to f o llo w it. 10 T h e tri al co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in o v erru li n g the ch all en g e t o M r. M y ers beca us e t he l aw w as neverexpl ai ned t o hi m an d he w as neveras ked w het herhe coul d put

as i de hi s per s onal vi ew s des pi t e t he l aw . A nd al t hough M r . D avi s s on w as t ol d t hat“t he l aw exp ec ts juro rs nott o” cons i dercos t s as s oci at ed w i t h hous i ng i nm at es , he w as neveras ked

w h ethe r he w o u ld b e a b le t o p u t asi d e h is pe rson al v iew s an d fo ll o w that law
. V iew ing M r. D av isson ’s en ti re v o ird ir e a n d h is d em ea n o r i n an sw ering the q u esti o n s, the tri al co u rt det er m i ned t hat M r . D avi s s on w oul d not be “subs t ant i al l y i m pai r ed” i n hi s abi l i t yt o fol l ow t he i ns t r uct i ons and ans w ert he i s s ues bas ed s ol el yon t he evi dence pr es ent ed. O n t hi s r ecor d,

a p p e llan t h a s n o t m e t h is b u rd e n o f sh o w in g th a t M r. D a v iss o n w o u ld n o t b e a b le to

over come hi s pr ej udi ce a nd fol l ow t he l aw . Poi nt s of err ort w o and t hr ee a r e overr ul ed. In h is f o u rth p o in t o f

e rro r, ap p e llan t cla im s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in o v e rru lin g h is

m ot i on t o quas h par agr aphs one, t w o, and t hr ee of t he i ndi ct m ent
. W e concl ude t hat t he t r i al

cour thad no author i t yt o cons i dera mot i on t o quas h t he i ndi ct m entdur i ng a puni s hm entBI GB Y – 9

Lop e z v . S tate , 18 S.W .3d 637, 639-40 (Te x . Crim. App. 2000). 11 Bigby , 402 F.3d at 575. 12 r et r i al
. W hen an a ppel l at e cour t r emands a cas e t o t he t r i al cour tfora r et r i al on puni s hm ent onl y , t he appe l l at e cour thas aff i r m ed t he gui l tpor t ion o f the tr ial ; t hus , t he t r i al cour tno l ongerhas any aut hor i t y over t hat gui l t por t i on of t he t r i al and no author i t yt o cons i derany claim that relates to tha t po rtio n o f th e tri al. T h e F ift h C ir cu itaf firm ed ap p ell an t’ s 11 convi ct i on and vac at ed and r emanded onl yon hi s s ent ence . T he t r i al cour t ’ s aut hor i t yw as 12 l i m i t ed t o t hatgr ant ed t o i ton r emand. I s s ues r el at i ng t o t h e g u il t p h ase o f t r i al w er e not befor e t he t r i al cour ton r emand for a puni s hm entr et r i al
. Poi ntof err orfouri s over r ul ed. In p o int of

erro r five , ap p ell an t cl aim s tha t th e tri al co u rterred in su stai n ing the S tat e’s hear s ayand re l evanc e obj ect i ons t o t es t i m onyr el at i ng t o i nfor m at i on cont ai ned on a pol i ce “w ant e d p e r s o n ” d a t a f o r m i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t was b e l i e v e d t o h a v e a h i s t o r y of ps y chol ogi cal di s or der s . A gener al under s t andi ng of t he fac t s of t he offe ns e i s nece s s ar yfor anal y s i s of t hi s i s s ue. I n 1987, appel l antfi l ed a w or k e r s ’ c o mpe n s a t i o n l aw s ui tagai ns tFr i t o- L ay . A ppel l ant bel i eved Fr i t o- L ayand i t s i ns ur ance company w er e conspi r i ng agai ns t hi m t o avoi d pay i ng h is cl aim
. H e a lso b eli ev ed that the in su ran ce co m p an yan d o thers, i n clud ing frien d s, w ere
cons pi r i ng t o ki l l hi m . A r ound 6: 00 p. m . on t he eve ni ng of D ece m ber23, 1987, appel l ant

w e n t to th e h o m e o f

h is lo n g -tim e f

rie n d , M ic h a e l T re k e ll, w h o w a s th e re c a rin g f o r h is i nfants on, J ay s on. A ppel l ant and M i chae l w at ched t el evi s i on as M i chae l began pr epar i ngBI GB Y – 10

s t eaks t hatappel l anthad br oughtover . A s M icha el s atatt he ki t chen t abl e, appel l ants hot h im in th e h e a d . A p p e llan t atte m p ted to su f f o c a te Ja y so n w ith c e llo p h a n e , b u t, w h e n th a t d id notw or k qui ckl y enough, he dr ow ned t he i nfantbyfor ci ng hi m fac e- dow n i n a s i nk fi l l ed

w i t h w at er . J ay s on’ s m ot her , G r ace K ehl er , r etur ned home fr om w or k i n t he ea r l ym or ni ng hour s t o di s cover t he bodi es of bot h M i chae l and J ay s on. G r ace t ol d pol i ce s he r emem ber ed appel l antonce t al ki ng about ki l l i ng a l ot of peopl e and goi ng out i n a bl aze of gl or y . G r ace al s o t es t i fi ed t hat s he knew appel l ant had m ent al pr obl ems and t hathe had be en hos pi t al i zed i n a ment al hos pi t al m or e t han once
. A ft erl eavi ng M i chae l ’ s hom e, appel l ant w ent t o t he hom e of hi s fr i end W es l eyC r ane
a t a b o u t 1 1 :4 5 p .m . T h e tw o sa t in th e k itch e n a n d talk e d
. A ro u n d 1 :1 5 a .m ., a p p e llan t to ld W e sle yh e th o u g h t so m e o n e w a s fo llo w in g h im a n d a sk e d W e sle y to g o o n a d riv e w ith h im to se e w h o it w a s. D u rin g th e d riv e , ap p e llan t to ld W e sle y to p u ll o v e r an d th e n sh o t h im in t he head. A ppel l ant l eft W es l ey on t he roa d and drove W es l ey ’ s t r uck t o t he hom e of anot her fr i end, Fr ank J ohns on, ar ound 3: 20 a. m . W hen Fr ank J ohns on ans w er ed t he door , appel l ant
s hothi m s ever al t i m es . W es l ey C r ane and Fr ank J ohns on bot h di ed as a r es ul t of t he guns hot

w ou nd s. Pol i ce put out a br oadca s tforW es l eyC r ane’ s t r uck, and an e xt ens i ve s ear ch bega n forappel l ant
. H e w as found ata mot el i n For tW or t h on D ece m ber26, and a SW A T t eam and ot heroffi cer s s ur r ounded t he mot el
. A ppel l ant eventual l y s ur r ender ed w i t houti nci dent and adm i t t ed t o t he murde r s . H e s t at ed t hathe ki l l ed hi s t hr ee f r i ends beca us e he thoughtBI GB Y – 11

t hey had conspi r ed w i t h Fr i t o- L ay agai ns t hi m t o under m i ne hi s w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cas e. H e s ai d t hathe di d notknow w hyhe ki l l ed J ay s on. D e tec tiv e C u rtis B ra n n a n tes tifie d f o r th e S tate th a t h e w a s in v o lv e d in th e “ m a n h u n t” forappel l ant
. H e t es t i fi ed about t he bul l et i ns t hatw er e di s pat ched, des cr i bi ng appel l antas pot ent i al l yar m ed and dan g ero u s . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, appel l antat t empt ed t o offe r evi dence t hatt he “w ant ed per s on” dat a for m r egar di ng appel l antal s o i ndi cat ed t hatappel l ant

w as “t houghtt o have [ a] hi s t or y of ps y chol ogi cal di s or der s . ” A ppel l antoffe r ed t he “w ant ed per s on” dat a for m i nt o evi dence and ar gued t hati tw as admi s s i bl e bec aus e i tw as notoffe r ed fori t s t r ut h and t hati tw as al s o admi s s i bl e as a b u sine s s r ecor d orr epor tunderR ul e of E vi dence 803( 8) ( c)
. T he St at e’ s hear s ayobj ect i on w as s us t ai ned. A ppel l antnow cont ends t he “w ant ed per s on” dat a for m w as noti nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay b e c a u se it w a s n o t o f

f e re d f o r th e tru th a ss e rte d , b u t w a s o f f e re d to e sta b lish a m o re c o m p lete pi ctur e of the cont extof t he manhunt fol l ow i ng t he m ur der s . A ppel l antar gues t hatt hi s w as par t i cul ar l yi m por t anti n l i ght of t he ot her not at i ons on t he for m t hatappel l antw as “arm ed

w i t h unknow n w eapons ” and “extr emel ydanger ous . ” A ppel l antar gues t hatt hi s er r orw as nothar m l es s beca us e, w i t houtt hi s evi dence , t he j ur or s had an e r r o neous vi ew of t he

m anhunt , and i ti s pos s i bl e “thatt hei rer r oneous vi ew of t he manhunt l ed t hem t o bel i eve that pol i ce of fi ci al s cons i der ed appe l l antdanger ous w i t h no m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o t emper th a t d a n g e r, a n d th a t th e yto o s h o u ld a d o p t th a t v ie w .” W e nee d notdeci de w het hert he exc l us i on of t hi s evi dence w as er r orbeca us e anyBI GB Y – 12

T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2(b). 13 J o h n so n v . S ta te , 9 6 7 S .W .2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). 14 e rro r in its e x c lu sio n w a s c lea rlyh a rm le s s . N o n c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r th a t d o e s n o t af f e c t a
s ubs t ant i al r i ghtm us tbe di s r egar ded. A n er r ordoes notaff ecta s ub stan ti al r i ghti f t he 13

re v iew in g c o u rt “ h a s f

a ir a s s u r a n c e th a t th e e rro r d id n o t in f lu e n c e th e ju ry , o r h a d b u t a
s l i ghteff ect
. ” T he j ur yatt he puni s hm entphas e i s char ged w i t h cons i der i ng “al l evi dence 14 admi t t ed att he gui l tori nnocenc e s t age and t he puni s hm ents t age, i ncl udi ng evi dence of t he defe ndant ’ s backgr ound orchar act erort he ci r cumst ance s of t he off ens e t hatm i l i t at es foror
m i t i gat es agai ns tt he i m pos i t i on of t he dea t h penal t y . ” T h e ju ryw as pres ented w i t h ev i den ce of app el l ant’ s paranoia and d el usi on s, h is h o sp it ali za ti o n s fo r psy ch iat ri c treatm en t, h is bizarre, v iolen t, an d o u t- o f-c o n tr o l beh av ior, t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he murde r s , var i ous di agnos es of appe l l antfors uch ment al i l l nesses as par ano i d schizoph reni a, anti -s ocial personali t y , and otherpersonali t ydis orders , and appe l l ant ’ s dr ug us e. E xcl us i on of t he “w ant ed per s on” dat a for m beca us e i ts t at ed t hat

a p p e llan t w a s “ th o u g h t to h a v e [ a ] h isto ry o f p sy c h o lo g ica l d iso rd e rs” w a s in sig n if ica n t in

v iew o f the o ther e v iden ce b ef o re the juryo f a p p ell an t’ s p sy ch o log ical i n stab il ity . M o reo v er, th e m in d se t o f law e n f

o rc e m e n t d u rin g th e m a n h u n t h a d o n ly ten u o u s, if a n y , re lev a n c e to t he s peci al i s s ues . T he poss i bi l i t y t hat t he i nfor m at i on on t he dat a for m m i ghthave c aus ed th e p o lice to v iew a p p e llan t a s so m e h o w les s d a n g e ro u s at th e tim e o f th e m a n h u n t is p u re ly speculat i ve and of l i t t l e rel evan ce t o the j ury ’s ow n d et erm i nati on of the pu nis hm ent i ssues.BI GB Y – 13

530 U.S. 466 (2000). 15 536 U.S. 584 (2002). 16 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 17 Rober ts v . S

tate , 220 S.W .3d 521, 534 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. de nied, 128 S. Ct . 282 18 (2 00 7) ; Ma rsh all

v . S tate , 210 S.W .3d 618, 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), cert. de nied, 128 S. Ct . 87 (2007). Poi ntof err orfi ve i s over r ul ed. In h is s ix th p o in t o f

e rro r, ap p e llan t cla im s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in re f u sin g h is

r equ ested j ur yi ns t r uct i on r equi r i ng t he j ur yt o fi nd t hatt he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s out w ei ghed t he mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s befor e r etur ni ng a ver di ctr equi r i ng t he i m pos i t i on
o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y. A p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d s h i s p o s i t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y Appr endi v. N ew Jer s ey , R i ng v. A r iz ona , and B l akel ey v . W as hi ngt on , w hi ch he cl ai m s r equi r e t hatt he 15 16 17 bur den be pl ace d on t he S tat e to pr ove a ne gat i ve ans w ert o t he mi t i gat i on i s s ue bey ond a

re a so n a b le d o u b t. A p p e llan t re a so n s th a t, be c a u se h e c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a ss e ss e d th e d e a th penal t yw i t houta nega t i ve fi ndi ng on t he t hi r d i s s ue, t he abse nce of m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s i s an el ement t hatm us tbe pr oven. B y n o t req u i r i ng pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , he cont ends , t he sche m e vi ol at es t he Appr endi / R i nglin e o f

c a se s a n d th e S ix th a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s . W e have r epea t edl y r ej ect ed ass er t i ons t hatt he Appr endi / R i ngcas es compel appl i cat i on of a bur den of pr oof on t he mi t i gat i on i s s ue. Poi ntof err ors i x i s over r ul ed. 18 In p o ints o f e rror sev en , eigh t, an d n ine, ap p ell an t cl aim s tha t th e tri al co u rt ’s

s ubm i s s i on of t he mi t i gat i on i s s ue and the r ej ect i on of hi s pr opos ed mi t i gat i on i s s ue vi ol at edBI GB Y – 14

Bigby , 402 F.3d at 572. 19 Art. 37.0711 bec ame law August 30, 1993. 20 Appellant’s r equeste d instructions, which we re b ased on statutory mitigation fa ctors 21 applicablein a fe deral death-pe nalty case , wer e not pa rt of Texas la

w at the time of the off

ense, nor arethe y pa rt of thelaw n ow . T he re fo re , th e y wo uld no t be a pe rm iss ibl e mann e r in whi c h to a dd re ss themit ig atio n is su e in T e xas. t he ex p o st fa c to pr ohi bi t i ons of t he fe der al and s t at e co n sti t ut i ons . W hen appe l l ant
co m m it ted th is cri m e in 1 9 8 7 (an d at t h e ti m e o f h is fir st pu n ishm en t tri al i n M arc h o f 1 9 9 1 ), t her e w as no s t atut or ym i t i gat i on i s s ue. T he s t atu tory m i t i gat i on i s s ue bec ame l aw on S eptem ber 1, 19 91
. T he F i ft h C i rcui theld t hat the juryi nst ruct i on s gi ven at app el l ant’ s fi rs t p u n i s h me n tt r i a l f

a i l e d t o a l l o w j u r o r s t o g i v e e f f e c tt o a p p e l l a n t ’ s mi t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e . At 19
t he retr i al on puni s hm ent , A r t i cl e 37. 0711 r equi r ed s ubm i s s i on of t he s t atut or ym i t i gat i on i s s ue foroffe ns es comm i t t ed bef or e Sept ember 1, 1991. A ppel l ant o bjected to the 20 in stru c tio n s as v io latin g th e p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st ex pos tf act o l aw s and r eques t ed s ubm i s s i on
o f h i s ow n pr opos ed i ns t r uct i ons w hi ch w er e bas ed on t he s t atut or ym i t i gat i on fact o rs appl i cabl e i n fede r al death- penal t ycas es . T he t r i al cour tr ej ect ed appe l l ant ’ s obj ect i on and 21

r eques tand i ns t r uct ed t he j ur y i n acc or dance w i t h A r t i cl e 37. 0711. A ppel l antcont ends t hat t he appl i cat i on of A r t i cl e 37. 0711 vi ol at ed ex po st fa c to l aw s byal t er i ng t he l egal r ul es of evi dence s o as t o r ece i ve l es s or di ffe r ent evi dence t han t he l aw r equi r ed at t he t i m e of t he

o ff en se in o rde r t o co n v ict(or h ere , to p u t t o d ea th) t h e o ff en d er. I n as s es s i ng an ex pos tf act o c laim , th e re lev a n t c o m p a riso n is b e tw e e n th e law a s it

e x iste d a t th e tim e o f

th e o f f e n se a n d th e law th a t w a s a p p lied a t trial.BI GB Y – 15

Tennard v. Dretk

e , 5 42 U. S. 2 74 (2 00 4) ; Penry v . Lynaugh , 4 92 U. S. 3 02 (1 98 9) ; se eals o 22 Bigby , 402 F.3d at 572. We assume without decidingthat the ex post facto prov isi on s w ou ld a pp ly to a statute that was enac ted to satisfy a judicially-re cognized c onstitut ional mandate. Se eRoge rs v. Tennesse e , 532 U.S. 451 (2001) ( ex post facto c la us e do e s not a

pp ly to j udic iary

); se eals o Orti

z v . S tate , 93 S
. W
. 3 d 79, 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ( ex post facto prov isi on s in U. S. a nd state constitutions are direc ted at leg islatures, not courts). Se e Mc Fa rla nd v . S tate , 9 28 S.W. 2d

48 2, 52 1 ( 19 96 ); se e als o Pr y stash v . S tate , 3 S.W .3d 23 522, 534 (Te x. Crim
. A

pp . 1999) (although mitigating e videnceis statutorily define d as that evide nce which “a juror might reg ard a s reduc ing a defe ndant’s moral blamewor thiness,” statutory

mitigation instruction provides jury

with vehicle to re spond to broader rang e of mitig atingevidenc e). Dobbert v. Florida , 4 32 U. S. 2 82 , 2 94 (1 97 7) ; se eals o W eave r v. Graham , 450 U.S. 24, 24 29 & n.13 ( 1981) (two c ritical ele ments mu s t b e p resent for e xpo st f ac to law: it must be re tr os pe c tiv e and it must dis a dv antag e theof fe nd e r; e xpo st f ac to ana lysis is “ c on c e rn e d s ole ly wi th (continued...) T he instruct i on s gi ven un der A rt i cl e 37
. 07 11 did no tviol at e t he p rohi bit i on against ex po st f ac to la w s . In 1 9 8 7 , w h en the o ff en se w as c o m m it ted, t h ere w as n o statu tory

m it igation issue
. T h e d ea th-p en alt ysch em e a s itex ist ed at t h at t im e , w ith n o statu tory

m iti g a tio n iss u e , w a s h e ld b y the U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt to b e c o n stitu tio n a lly i nadequa t e t o al l ow t he j ur yt o cons i derand gi ve ef fec tt o m i t i gat i ng evi d en ce . T he 22

sc h e m e th a t ap p lied a t ap p e llan t’s p u n ish m e n t re trial h a s b e e n h e ld to p ro v id e th e ju ryw ith

a n a d e q u a te v e h icle to c o n sid e r a n d g iv e e f f e c t to m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e . T h u s, a s th e S tate 23 po i nts ou ti n it s b ri ef, t he st at utor ym i t i gati on i ssue provided ap pell ant w i t h m ore, no tl ess, pr ot ect i on t han he w oul d r ece i ve under t he l aw as i t exi s t ed at t he t i m e of t he off ens e. T he p ro c e d u re lea d in g to th e ju ry ’s p u n ish m e n t v e rd ict in a p p e llan t’s re trial w a s c o n stitu tio n a l,

w hi l e t he pr ocedur e i n pl ace at t he t i m e of t he offe ns e w as not
. “I t i s axi om at i c t hat for a l aw t o be ex p o st fa c to i tm us tbe more oner ous t han t he pr i or law
. ” B eca us e appe l l antw as 24BI GB Y – 16

(...continued) 24 wh e the r a statut e a ssi gns more dis a dv antag e ou s c ri min a l or pe na l con se qu e nc e s to an a c t th an did the law in pla c e wh e n th e a c t oc c ur re d” ); Ho lt v . S

tate , 2 Tex. 363 (1847) (law at issue “does in no respe ct operate to the pr ejudice of the ac cused, a

nd is not, therefore, an e

xpo st f ac to law”)
. Se eGrim es v . S

tate , 8 07 S.W. 2d

58 2, 58 6- 87 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ) (a do pti ngSup re me 25 Court’s definition of “ e

xpo st f ac to ” and holdingthat it is t o be used in interpretingsame ter m found in Article I , section 16 of Te x as Constitut ion). gi ven gr eat erpr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons t han he had under t he pr evi ous l aw , t her e i s no ex po st fa c to vi ol at i on underei t hercons t i t ut i on. A ppel l ant ’ s cont ent i on that t he Texas 25 C on st i t uti on ’s ex p o st fa c to p rov isi o n p rov ides g rea ter p rotec ti o n than it s fe d era l cou n terpa rt i s bas ed on i t s l anguage t hat i t appl i es t o al l “r et r oact i ve l aw s . ” E ven i f w e w er e t o r ecogni ze t h a to u r s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n p r o v i d e s g r e a t e rp r o t e c t i o n i n s o me c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we decl i ne t o cons i dert he i s s ue i n t hi s cont extw here ap p ell anthas been a ffor ded gr eat er
cons t i t u ti o n al p rot ect i ons undert he curr entl aw t han he w as aff or ded undert he pr evi ous pr ovi s i on. Poi nt s of err ors even, ei ght , and ni ne ar e overr ul ed. In p o in t o f

e rro r te n , ap p e llan t cla im s th a t th e trial c o u rt v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts b yre f u sin g h is re q u e ste d ju ryin stru c tio n w h ich w o u ld re q u ire th e ju ryto a s s u m e th a t, i f

s e n te n c e d to lif

e im p ri s o n m e n t, a p p e lla n t “ w ill s p e n d th e re s t o f h is n a tu ra l lif e in p ri s o n .” T he t r i al cour ti ns t r uct ed t he j ur yt hati t w as “not t o cons i der or di s cus s any pos s i bl e ac t i on
o f th e B o a rd o f

P a rd o n s a n d P a ro les o r of th e G o v e rn o r, o r ho w lo n g th e D e f e n d a n t w o u ld be r equi r ed t o s er ve a s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent
. ” R el y i ng on S im m o n s v . S o u thBI GB Y – 17

512 U.S. 154 (1994). 26 Busb yv . S tate , 990 S.W. 2d

26 3, 27 1- 72 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); Cha mb e rla in v . S tate , 27 99 8 S. W.2 d 2 30 , 2 35 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); Brox ton v . S tate , 9 09 S.W. 2d

91 2, 91 9 ( Te x. Crim. App. 1995). W e are not pre sented he re w ith the appropriateness of suc h an instruction when the sentenc e at issue is life without parole. Drue ry v . S tate , 2 2 5 S
. W
. 3 d 4 9 1 , 508 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. de nied, 128 S. Ct . 627 28 (2 00 7) ; Ma rsh all , 210 S.W .3d at 626. C ar ol i na , a p p e llan t ar g u e s th a t th e in stru c tio n g iv e n c o u ld h a v e led th e ju rye rro n e o u slyto

26 b e liev e th a t if it a ss e ss e d a life se n ten c e , “p a ro le m ig h t o p e r a te to re d u c e th e ter m o f h is confi nement t o an undet er m ined leng th of t i m e att he w hi m of t he B oar d of Par dons and P a r o le s .” W e h a v e r e p e a te d ly r e je c te d c la im s th a t Si m m ons compel s an i ns t r uct i on i nfor m i ng t he jury o f t he ef

fec tof t he par ol e l aw s on a l i fe s ent ence i n w hi ch t her e i s a pos s i bi l i t yof par ol e. Poi ntof err ort en i s over r ul ed.

27 I n poi ntof err or el even, appel l ant cl ai m s t hatt he mi t i gat i on i s s ue i s uncons t i t ut i onal beca us e i tfai l s t o pl ace t he bur den of pr oof on t he S t at e r egar di ng t he aggr avat i ng evi dence
. A ppel l antcont ends t hatt he defe ns e has an i m pl i ed bur den t o pr oduce s uffi ci entm i t i gat i on evi dence t o w ar r anta s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent
. A ppel l antal s o compl ai ns t hatt he statu te plac es u n fa ir , u n d u e, a n d u n co n sti tuti o n al e m p h asis o n the fin d ing o f the d ef en d an t’ s “mora l cul pabi l i t y ” w hi ch appe l l ants ay s w as al r eadyfound byt he j ur yatgui l t
. A ppel l ant
c o n c e d e s th e e x iste n c e o f a d v e rse a u th o rityo n th is m a tter, b u t co n ten d s th a t th e iss u e s m e rit t he C our t ’ s r econs i der at i on. W e ar e not per s uaded t o r econs i der our pr ece dent
. Poi ntof 28

er r orel even i s over r ul ed.BI GB Y – 18

Ga llo v . S tate , 239 S.W .3d 757, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), cert. de nied, 7 6 U
. S. L
. W. 29 36 35 (2 00 8) ; J

ou be rt v . S

tate , 235 S.W .3d 729, 731-32 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007), cert. de nied, 128 S. Ct . 1 44 6 ( 20 08 ); Ra

y for d v . S tate , 125 S.W .3d 521, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 472 U.S. 320 (1985). 30 486 U.S. 367 (1988). 31 Russeau , 1 71 S.W. 3d

at 88 6; Pr

y stash , 3 S.W .3d at 536-37. 32 In p o in t o f

e rro r tw e lv e , ap p e llan t cla im s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in o v e rru lin g h is

m ot i on t o pr ecl ude t he i m pos i t i on of t he dea t h p en alt y o n t he gr ound t hatt he i ndi ct m ent f a i l e d t o c o n t a i n a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e p u n i s h me n t s p e c i a l i s s u e s . App e l l a n tconce des

a u th o rityto th e c o n tra ry b u t u rg e s re c o n sid e ra tio n . W e d e c lin e to re c o n sid e r th is p re c e d e n t. 29 Poi ntof err ort w el ve i s over r ul ed. In h is th irtee n th p o in t o f e rro r, a p p e llan t c laim s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to i ns t r uctj ur or s , as appel l antr eques t ed, nott o cons i deranyans w er s and corr es p ondi ng
s ent ence by a pr evi ous j ur yi n cons i der i ng and ans w er i ng t he s peci al i s s ues i n t he puni s hm ent

r et r i al
. H ow ever , t he t r i al cour t i ncl uded an i ns t r uct i on i n t he j ur ychar ge i dent i cal t o t he one

r eques t ed byappel l ant
. Poi ntof err ort hi r t een i s over r ul ed. In p o in t o f

e rro r f o u rte e n , ap p e llan t cla im s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y re f u sin g to i ns t r uctt he j ur yt hati f a s i ngl e j ur or hol ds outfora l i fe s ent ence , t he s ent ence w oul d be l i fe i m pr i s onm entbyoper at i on of l aw . A ppel l antcont ends t he Texas sch em e vi ol at es t he pr i nci pl es under l y i ng C al dw el lv. Mis s is s i ppi and Mi l l

s v. Mar yl and
. T hi s i s s ue has been 30 31 deci ded adve r s el yt o appel l ant
. Poi ntof err orfour t een i s over r ul ed. 32BI GB Y – 19

Ga llo , 239 S.W .3d at 780. 33 I n hi s fi ft eenth poi nt of er r or , appel l antcont ends t hatt he us e of pa ncur oni um br om i de i n t he che m i cal m i x us ed fo r e xecut i ons i n T exas vi ol at es t he Ei ght h A m endment t o t he U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n . A p p e llan t’s e x e c u tio n is n o t im m in e n t; th e re f o re , the m e th o d in

w hi ch i ti s cur r ent l ycarr i ed out i s not det er m i nat i ve of t he w ayi tw i l l be admi ni s t er ed att he t i me o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s e x e c u t i o n . App e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m i s n o tr i p e f o rr e v i e w. Po i n to f

er r or 33 fi ft een i s over r ul ed. T he j udgm entof t he t r i al cour ti s aff i r m ed. D el i ver ed: O ct ober8, 2008 D o notpubl i s h.