T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 19.03(a) (1). 1 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.071 § 2(g ). 2 

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

OF TE XAS
N O
. A P- 75, 924

R A N D A L L W A Y N E M A Y S , A ppel l ant

v . T HE S T AT E OF T E XAS ON D I REC T AP P EAL F ROM THE 3 9 2 n d J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT C OURT HEN DER SON CO UN TY C OCHR AN , J . , d eli v er ed th e o p inion o f the u n a n im o u s C o u rt.
OP I NI ON I n M ay2008, a j ur yconvi ct ed R andal l W ay ne M ay s of ca pi t al m ur derfor t he s hoot i ng d e a th o f H e n d e rso n C o u n tyD e p u tyS h e rif f T o n yO g b u rn . B a se d o n th e ju ry ’s a n sw e rs to 1
t he s peci al i s s ues s et for t h i n T exas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 37. 071, Sect i ons 2( b)

a n d 2 (e ), th e trial ju d g e se n ten c e d M a y s to d e a th

. A f ter re v iew in g M a y s’s tw e n ty -o n e p o in ts 2M ay s Page 2

De p uty Va l en t i n e te s t i fi ed th ath e h adj u s tre turn edt o th e s h er i ff ’s o ff i ce af t er att en d i n g a 3 peac e off icer s’ memorial ser

vice f or fa llen office rs when herec eived the dispatch. Ap pe lla nt w a s a we lde r. Hi s p ro pe rt

y c onta ine d a

re sid e nc e , s e ve ral sh e ds , c on sid e ra ble 4 we ldi nge qu ipm e nt, and

so me fa rm ma c hin e ry , a s w e ll a s a

va ri e ty of fa rm anim a ls. o f error on d ir ec t ap p ea l, w e co n clud e t h at t h ey are w it h o u t m erit

. A cc o rdin g ly , w e a ff ir m th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound A ppel lant w as char ged w i t h t he ca pi t al m ur derof t w o s her i ff’ s deput i es and t he

a ttem p ted c a p ital m u rd e r of a th ird d e p u ty , all ste m m in g f ro m a sta n d -o f

f w ith p o lice a t h is

r ur al pr oper t y . T hi s appea l i s fr om appel l ant ’ s t r i al for t he fi r s t deput y ’ s deat h. T he evi dence s how ed t hatat about 3: 00 p. m . on M ay 17, 2007, Fr an N i chol s on cal l ed t he H ender s on C ount y911 di s pat cher and s ai d t hatappel l ant , hernei ghbor , w as s hoot i ng a handgun at h is w i fe, w ho w as cl os e t o t he r oad. M r s . N i chol s on w as w or r i ed bec aus e t he

s chool b u s w as about t o dr op off he r gr anddaught ernearw her e appe l l antw as s hoot i ng. A ft er t he fi r s t s hot , M r s . N i chol s on hear d one or t w o m or e, and s he s aw appel l ant ’ s w ife, C an d is, w alkin g d o w n the e ase m en t. C an d is an d ap p ell an t w ere scre am ing at ea ch o ther. D eput i es B i l l yJ ack V al ent i ne, D uane Sanders, and Er i c W ar d r es ponded t o t he “domest i c vi ol ence –guns hot ” di s pat ch cal l

. A l l t hr ee w er e i n uni for m , w ear i ng badges , and 3 dr i vi ng m ar ked pat r ol car s or t r ucks

. A ppel l ant ’ s t w o- acr e pr oper t yw as s ur r ounded bypi pe fenc i ng, s o D eput i es V al ent i ne and Sande r s hopped overt he fe nce t o t al k t o t he coupl e w ho

4M ay s Page 3

Va le nti ne ha d tu

rn e d o n his patr ol- c ar vid e ota pe and bo dy mic ro ph on e a s he p ull e d u p to 5 appellant’ s proper

ty
. Virtually ever

y thing that was said by the officers, appellant, and Candis during the stand-of

f wa s on the audio tape, but the fix ed-position video re corde r did not capturemuch of the ac tion. The tape is almost five hours long, although the stand-off itself lasted less than an hour

. w er e s t i l l s t andi ng near t he r oad. C andi s , w ho w as des cr i bed as bei ng “s l ow , ” w al ked “r i ght 5 up di r ect l yi n [D eput ySander s ’ s ] fac e. ” She w as angr y and s ai d he had no bus i nes s bei ng on t hei r pr oper t y . “W e’ r e j us t havi ng a s pat
. ” A ppel l ant , how ev er, w as cal m , pol i t e, and f rie n d ly . H e e x p la in e d th a t C a n d is h a d b e e n se x u a llya ss a u lted a n d h e w a s m a d a b o u t it

. A ppel l antt ol d D eput yV al ent i ne t hathe di d not know w ho had cal l ed t he pol i ce, but h e “ g u e ss e d ” th a t C a n d is h a d . V a len tin e a ss u re d a p p e llan t th a t h e w a s jus t try in g to d o h is j ob and fi gur e out w hat w as goi ng on, s o he ca l l ed di s pat ch t o fi nd out w ho had made t he 911 cal l

. W h en the di s pat chers ai d t hatt he ca l l came fr om t he nei ghbor , Fr an N i chol s on, V al ent i ne s entD eput ySander s overt o t he N i chol s ons ’ hous e t o fi nd out w hys he had c al l ed. Ju st a s h e w a s le a v in g , S a n d e rs s a w D e p u tyT o n yO g b u r n a r r iv e in h is p a tro l ca r. D e p u ty O g b u rn w a s w e a ri n g h is p o lic e u n if o rm a n d h a t. I n t he meant i m e, V al ent i ne as ked appe l l ant i f he had a gun on hi m and w het herhe had b e e n sh o o tin g . A p p e llan t s a id th a t h e h a d b e e n “ tar g e t p ra c ticin g ,” a n d th a t th e g u n w a s in hi s hous e. V al ent i ne al s o cal m ed C andi s dow n, and appel l ant j oked about ho w h e “ w as

w ant i ng t o gets om e l ovi ng fr om herand t h at’s w hats t ar t ed t hi s . ” Throughout , appel l ant “w as ver yni ce, co u rt eous”; he w as “s uper - cal m . ” H ow ever , V al ent i ne al s o s t at ed t hat

a p p e lla n t w a s w e ll k n o w n to th e lo c a l d e p u tie s b e c a u s e “ [ h ]e s h o o ts a lo t o u t th e re .” Sander s r adi oed back t hat t he N i chol s ons w ant ed t o pr es s char ges agai ns t appel l antM ay s Page 4

L ater testimony

showed that appe llant almost drove into the back of Valentine’ s pick-up 6 tr uc k a s V a l e nt i n e w a s b a c k i n g o ut o f h i s dr i v e w ay o n e d ay . T h e d e p uty w a s o f f

- d uty , i npla in clothes, and with his wife, but when he saw appellant continue to sw erve down the roa d, he followe d the ca r unt il it pulled into a driveway

. When Valentine walked up to the driver’ s door and a sked the driver to step out, a

ppellant g ot out and hit the deputy in the head with his fist. V alentine thought that appellant wa s intox icated. A lthough a ppellant was a

rre sted, the cha

rg e wa s later dismissed. for deadl yconduct , s o V al ent i ne ca l led di s pat ch t o s ee i f appe l l anthad anyfel ony
c o n v ictio n s o r a rre sts . H e d id ; “th e m o st re c e n t [ a rre st] w a s a 7 /1 /9 9 a ss a u lt o n a p u b lic

se rv a n t.” V a len tin e sa id , “T h a t w a s m e , tha t w a s o n m e .” H e th e n a p p ro a c h e d a p p e llan t to 6

a rre st h im a n d sa id , “B e f o re y o u talk to m e a n y m o re , O K , liste n to m e . N o w d o n ’t m a k e th is

n o h a rd e r th a n it’s g o n n a b e , O K ? Y o u h a v e th e rig h t to re m a in sile n t– ” A t th a t m o m e n t, appel l ant ’ s fac e cha nged, and he s t ar t ed bac ki ng up. A ccor di ng t o Fr an N i chol s on, w ho w as w at chi ng fr om her fr ont porch , appel l ant “b rok e to ru n fo r t h e h o u se.” V alen ti n e re ac h ed o u t t o g rab the ba ck o f ap p ell an t’ s T -shirt to stop h im fro m g ett ing to the h o u se w h ere ap p ell an t had said h e h ad w ea p o n s. A p p ell an t’ s T

- s hi r t r i pped, and he pul l ed a kni fe a nd r an i n t he fr ont door w i t h V al ent i ne cl os e behi nd. A pp el l ant em erged a few second s l at er “w ith t he b arr el of the ri fl e com i ng ou t
. ” Itw as a 30. 06 deer r i fl e w i t h a s cope. V al ent i ne w as about t w o and a ha l f fe etaw ay , but appel l ant di d not s hoot ; i ns t ead, he y el l ed, “B ack of f, back of

f! ” A ppel l antdi s appea r ed bac k i ns i de t he hous e as V al ent i ne s cr eamed, “H e’ s got a gun! ” t o w ar n t he ot her offi cer s . V al ent i ne r an back a r ound t he s i de of t he hous e, t ook cover behi nd a t r uck, and keptt al ki ng t o appel l ant t o cal m hi m dow n, get hi m t o put dow n t he ri fl e, and com e back out s i de. V al ent i ne t es t i fi ed t hat appell ant pul l ed a ch ai r up t o a w i nd ow , sa t d o w n , a nd kep t t al king t o h i m . “W e j ustM ay s Page 5

Al l of thi s c onve rs atio n w a s c a ptu re d o n V a le nti ne ’s re c or de r. Val ent in e repe ate dly 7 promised not to hurt appellant, but appellant yelled that he f ear ed they

would kill himand said that “Ya ’ll k i l l ed al l three of my brothers.”[Accordingto later witnesse s, appellant did havethree brothers who wer e all dead: one executed by the s tate; one shot t o death; and onewho died of a drug overdose .] Appellant yelled, “Y ou’ve got a gun and I ’ve got one.” W hen Va lentine aske d appellant to adm it th at Val e nti ne ha d b e e n h on e st w ithhim , a pp e lla nt r e sp on de d, “ Yo u trie d to take me to jail!” Appe llant expressed confusion a bout why he wa s “the ba d guy” whe n th e off icer s had orig inally come to he lp his wife. He was mad that Deputy Valentine tor e his T-shirt whe n grabbing for him. He said, “I ’m sick, I ’m fee ling rea l sic k, I ’m about to die, any way , Iwas poisoned.” L ater , he said that he was “a m ilitary man.” [L ater witnesses said that appellant joined the Army when he was young .] keptgoi ng back a nd for t h, j us t di ffe r entt hi ngs . ” Even du ri n g t he mi ddl e of t he s t and- off,

a p p e lla n t “ s e e m e d to b e f in e m e n ta lly.” D e p u tyS a n d e rs h a d re tu rn e d f ro m th e N ich o ls o n s, a n d h e to o k c o v e r a lo n g w ith D eput i es W ar d and O gbur n. M or e off i ce rs keptar r i vi ng and t hey , t oo, t ook up defe ns i ve pos i t i ons behi nd car s , t r ucks , and sheds

. A ppel l ant and V al ent i ne i nt er m i t t ent l yy el l ed and talk e d b a c k a n d f

o rth f o r m o re th a n f

if tee n m in u tes
. M e a n w h ile, C a n d is w a s w a n d e rin g in

7
t he open y ar d bet w een t he deput i es and appel l ant , get t i ng i n t he l i ne of pos s i bl e fi r e, s ay i ng th a t th e o f

f ice rs w e re n o t g o in g to sh o o t h e r hu sb a n d a n d h e w o u ld n ’t sh o o t th e m . A d e p u ty fi nal l yt ackl ed herand pul l ed heroff be hi nd a s hed w her e he handcuf fed hert o keep he r s afe

. O th e r o f f ice rs, in c lu d in g D e p u tyO g b u rn , too k tu rn s ta lk in g to a p p e llan t. A ft eraboutt w ent ym i nut es , appel l antcl i m bed outof a w i ndow w i t hout hi s r i fl e and

s t a r t e d f o r wa r d t o wa r d t h e of

f i c e r s . As o n e d e p u t yt a l k e d t o a p p e l l a n t , k e e p i n g h i m c a l m, V al ent i ne t r ied to “s l ow l yeas e” be t w een a ppel l antand t he open w i ndow t o ens ur e t hat appel l ant coul d not r un back i nt o t he house w her e t he guns w er e. A ppel l ants aw hi m , t ur ned,M ay s Page 6

All of the witnesses, includingthe Nicholsons’ da ughter, testified that this was the first shot 8 fired. an d b o lt ed b ac k to w a rd th e w in d o w . V alen ti n e ra n to interce p t him , b u t he tri p p ed o v er a gar den hos e and fel l as appel l ant di ved head- fi r s t t hr ough t he w i ndow

. V al ent i ne gotup, but he w as t hen t r apped a gai ns t t he s i de of t he hous e as appel l antcoul d s hoot t hr ough ei t herof t w o w i nd ow s besi de V al enti ne, and he w as i n the di rectl i ne of fi re from his fel l ow dep uti es. T h re e m in u tes late r, ap p e llan t sh o t. D e p u ty S a n d e rs h e a rd th e b las t a n d sa w D e p u ty 8 O g b u rn’s h at flyin the air an d saw p art o f his h ea d ex p lod e. A p p ell an t t h en y ell ed , “W h ere ’s t he o t her one ? I’ l l t ake hi m ou t , w here i s he? ” Inspect or Pau l H abeltran t ow ard San ders,

w avi ng hi s ar m s . A ppel l ants h o t H ab elt in the head, ki l l i ng hi m al s o. T he off i cer s t hen

s t ar t ed s hoot i ng back. Sander s s aw D eput yK evi n H ar r i s r un pas t a nearbys hed, “[a ] nd as he got to the en d , I saw hi m j um p, excha nge t he gunfi r e, and I s aw hi s l eg expl ode fr om i m pact
. ” B ut appel l antw as al s o w ounded dur i ng t hi s excha nge. H e s cr eamed, “I gi ve up. I ’ ve bee n hi t
. I gi ve up. I ’ ve been hi t
. ” H e fi nal l yw al ked outof t he hous e and s ur r ender ed. A ppel l antl at ert ol d new s r epor t er s t hathe had ki l l ed t he t w o deput i es beca us e “I fel t I w as bei ng m i s t r eat ed. ” D ur i ng hi s cas e- i n- chi ef, appel l an t ca ll ed R on Shi el ds , t he i ns t r uct or for an I nt er m edi at e C r isi s I nt er vent i on cl as s t hatD eput i es V al ent i ne, Sander s , and W ar d had at t ended j us t t en day s befor e t he st and- off. H e t es t i fi ed t hatal l t hr ee de put i es had s cor ed an “exc el l ent ” af

t ert hei r t r ai ni ng. Shi el ds not ed t hatt he co u rs e had c over ed t echni ques for deal i ng w i t h m ent al l yi l l or di s t r es s ed peopl e, but he expl ai ned, “W heneve r w eapons [ar e]M ay s Page 7

i nvol ved, t hi s t r ai ni ng pr et t yw el l goes out t he w i ndow

. ” H e al s o s ai d t hat , once a s us pect i s s epar at ed fr om hi s w eapon, “y ou us e al l m eans nece s s ar y t o keep hi m s epar at ed fr om t hat

w eapo n” regardl ess of his m ental i nst abil i t yor di st res s. D e f e n se c o u n se l ca lled D r. G ild a K e ss n e r, a p sy c h o lo g ist w h o h a d n e v e r ta lk e d w ith appel l ant , t o t es t i fyt o heropi ni on t hatappel l ants uffe r ed fr om a “t h o u g h t d is or derw i t h a p a ra n o id id e a tio n .” P a ra n o ia, s h e e x p lain e d , is c h a r a c ter ize d b y“ su sp icio u sn e ss , d istru st, fearful ness. ” S he st at ed that parano i a i s exag gerat ed i n a cri si s and “i nv olves a deep m i st rust and s us pi ci ous ness a n d expec t at i on t hati ndi vi dual s have a m al evol ent , dece i t ful m ot i ve

w hen t heydeal w i t h y ou. ” Par anoi a does not pr events om eone f r om act i ng i nt ent i onal l yor know i ngl y , but s uch a pe r s on i s “i nfl uence d byt he di s or der ed t hought s . ” D r . K es s neragr eed t hatappel l ants how ed no s i gns of par anoi a unt i l V al ent i ne bega n t o read h i m his Mi r anda r i ght s . She di d not fi nd anyi ndi cat i ons t hatappel l antexper i ence d anyaudi t or y o r vi s ual hal l uci nat i ons . She s ai d t hatappel l antw as not i ns ane a nd t hat he

c o u ld “ in te n tio n a lly o r k n o w in g ly d o a n y th in g , s h o o t in th is c a s e . I m e a n , th a t’ s a p p a re n t.” T he def ens e al s o offe r ed t he w r i t t en t r ans cr i pt of t es t i m ony by D r . T her es a V ai l t hat had been t aken ou t si de the presence of the j ury . D r. V ai l w as appe l l ant’ s t reat i ng psy chiat ri st i n j ai l

. B ut beca use sh e had neve r di s cus s ed t he cr i m e w i t h appel l ant , s he had f or m ed no concl us i ons aboutw het herhe mi ght h av e b ee n exper i enci ng del us i ons att he t i m e of t he

m ur der s . She s ai d t hat appel l ant w as capa bl e of for m i ng t he i nt entt o comm i t hi s act i ons and abl e t o under s t and t hei r cons equenc es . D r . V ai l al s o not ed t hat , w hi l e appe l l ant ’ s bel i ef t hatM ay s Page 8

See supra note 7. 9 Mrs. Ogburn, who testified from her wheelc hair, said that she suffe red a stroke in 1996, 10 and eve r since the n her husba nd had taken car e of all of her needs. After his death, she had to move and now lives with her

sister in The Colony , TX. S h e s t at edth ata pe rs o n wi th th e ty p e o f p s ych o s i s th atap p el l an th adm i ghts u d d en l y “go 11 o f f ” wh e n h e f

e lt thr e ate n e d

. D r . V a il s a id th at a p p e ll ant h a d a lr e a dy h a d p r o b le ms w it h a fe llow inmate, and he thought that the ja ilers wer e poisoninghis food. he w as bei ng poi s oned w as fal s e, t he s t om ach- ache s t hat he des cr i bed as bei ng t he bas i s for 9 th is b e lief

a re c o m m o n in a n x io u s p e o p le s u c h a s a p p e llan t. A fter d eli b era ti n g fo r on e h o u r, the ju ryfo u n d ap p ell an t gu il tyo f c ap it al m u rde r. D ur i ng t he puni s hm entphas e, t he j ur y hear d br i ef vi ct i m - i m pactt es t i m onyfr om D e p u ty O g b u rn ’s w id o w a n d so n . D e p u tyH a rris te stif ied th a t h is in

ju re d leg c o n tin u e d to 10 af fe ct him an d that D ep u tyO g b u rn’s w isdo m h ad h elpe d h im d u ri n g h is ow n fa ther’s ter m in a l illn e ss . D e p u ty V a len tin e tes tifie d th a t D e p u tyO g b u rn h a d b e e n a m e n to r to h im d u rin g h is la w -e n f

o rc e m e n t ca re e r a n d th a t th e e v e n ts d u rin g th e st a n d -o f f h a d a d v e rse ly

a f f e c t e d h i m. D ur i ng t he def

ens e ca s e- i n- chi ef a t puni s hm ent , D r . V ai l t es t i fied in per s on. She di a g n o s e d a p p e l l a n t wi t h d e p r e s s i o n a n d “ a p s y c h o t i c d i s o r d e r n o t o t h e r wi s e s p e c i f i e d , ” a

co n d i t i o n t h a t wou l d ma k e a p e r s o n mor e d a n g e r o u s . Sh e d i d n o t k n o w i f a p p e l l a n t w as 11

m ent al l yi l l on t he dayof t he s t and- off, and s he di d not have any i ndi cat i on t hathe had pr evi ous l ybeen t r eat ed fo r a m en t al i l l nes s . D r . V ai l di d not begi n t r eat i ng hi m unt i l four

m o n t h s a f

t e r t h e s t a n d

- o f

f , a n d s h e n e v e r a s k e d h i m a n yt h i n g a b o u t t h a t d a y.M ay s Page 9

Candis’s daughter, Christina W hite, testified that she wa s relieve d when a ppellant married 12 her mother , who was me ntally unable to take car e of he rs el f. M s . W h ite noticed that a c ouple of t i m es ap p el l an ts u d d en l y

ch an gedm o o d s wi th o utany warn i n g. Ba sed on listening to the tape recording of the st and-of f, Dr. Self opined that appe llant’s 13 statements and a ctions throughout w ere consistent with some one who was c oming in and out of a delusional state. S ev era l fam il ym em b ers testi fied that ap p ell an t w as go o d w it h ch il d ren an d too k ca re of hi s fami l y . A ppel l ant ’ s s i s t er , Sher r y R os s , t es t i fi ed t hatappel l ant ’ s ol derbr ot herhad 12 been e xecut ed form ur ders om et i m e ar ound 1999. A ppel l ants aw a s econd br ot hers hot and ki l l ed i n 1977. A t hi r d br ot herdi ed of a dr ug over dos e. M s . R os s t es t i fi ed t hat appel l ant had been c om m i t t ed t w i ce f or dr ug us e, but t hathe had s t opped us i ng dr ugs ar ound 1991 w hen he bought hi s r ur al pr oper t y . A not hers i s t er , L i nda R os s , t es t i fi ed t hatappel l ants om et i m es had ment al “s pel l s ” w hen hi s ey es w oul d getw i de and he w oul d acts us pi ci ous and di s t r us t ful o f h er. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot heral s o t es t i fi ed t hat , a coupl e of t i m es , s he had s een
a p p e l l a n t g e t a “ we i r d l o o k ” i n h i s e y e s , b u t h e wa s “ a g o o d ma n . . . a l o v i n g f a t h e r . He lov ed ch il d ren . H e a lw ay s p lay ed w it h the n iece s an d n ep h ew s. H e’d g ive a n yb o d ythe s h ir t off hi s back, i f s om ebody w al ked up t o hi m and as ked hi m . ” V ar i ous fr i ends t es t i fi ed t hat

a p p e llan t w a s g e n tle, h o n e st, e v e n -te m p e re d , an d n e v e r o u t o f c o n tro l. D r. D a v id S e lf

, a p sy c h iatris t, t e stif

ied th a t h e h a d re v iew e d v a ri o u s r e c o r d s, b u t, becau se he ha d n ever ex a m i ned app el l ant, he co uld not m ake a f orm al diagnosi s. N onet hel es s , he opi ned t hatappel l anthad a “chr oni c and s ever e ps y chi at r i c i l l nes s ” t hatw as “ce nt r al l yi nvol ved i n t he ca us al i t yof t hi s offe ns e. ” H e t hought that t he evi dence of t he 13M ay s Page 10

In his B rief, appellant cites to some fourtee n article s, a couple of ele ctronic signs, and an 14 obituary as examples of the “ saturating ” media cover ag e. The State asserts that these items are not proper for c onsideration bec ause the y wer e neve r pre sented to the trial court and because of a la ck of “ cit atio ns , o r e ve n d ate s o f s up po se d p ub lic atio n. ” We h ave no do ub t th at th e pr e tria l me dia cover ag e wa s substantial, but the only question befor e the tria l judge was whe ther it should poll the jury on its ex posure to the sing le editorial that a ppellant pre sented to the judg e. cr i m e s how ed t hatappel l antw as exper i enci ng del us i onal t hi nki ng. N onet hel es s , appel l ant under s t ood t hat hi s act i ons dur i ng t he s t and- off w er e w r ong and i l l egal

. D r . Sel f al s o t hought th a t ap p e llan t’s h e a v ym e th a m p h e tam in e u se f if tee n y e a rs e a rlier m ig h t h a v e c o n trib u ted to hi s ps y chos i s beca us e t hi s dr ug des t r oy s br ai n ner ves and t i s s ue. A fter d eli b era ti n g less tha n three h o u rs, the ju ryan sw ere d “y es” to the fu ture da n g e r o u s n e s s i s s u e a n d “ n o ” t o t h e mi t i g a t i o n q u e s t i o n . Th e t r i a l j u d g e t h e n s e n t ence d appel l antt o deat h. In ter v iew ing J u ro rs A b o u t P re trial P u b li city I n hi s fi r s tpoi nt of er r or , appel l antas s er t s t hat t he t r i al j udge deni ed hi m a fai r t r i al

w hen he r efus ed t o pol l t he j ur y , i m m edi at el y befor e t he s t ar t of t r i al , on w het hert heyhad b e e n e x p o se d to o r a f

f e c ted b ym e d ia c o v e ra g e o f th e c a se . A p p e llan t ar g u e s th a t th e p u b lic f e e lin g a g a in st ap p e llan t “ sa tu ra ted ” th e lo c a l p o p u latio n , th u s the d e c isio n to p ro c e e d w ith t he t r i al w i t hout pol l i ng t he j ur or s aboutt hi s i s s ue w as an abus e of di s cr et i on and off ended t he E i gh t h an d F ou rt eenth A m end m ents
. R i ght befor e t r i al , appel l antas ked t he j udge t o pol l t he empanel ed j ur or s t o det er m i ne

w het heranyof t hem had r ead an edi t or i al t hathad appe ar ed i n t he Ath e n s Da i l y Re v i e w t he daybefor e. C ouns el s t at ed t hatt he edi t or i al s ugges t ed t hat l aw enfor cement w as w at chi ng

14M ay s Page 11

At trial, appe llant argued that the e ditorial appea red “ to communicate to the j urors that the 15 law e nf or c e me nt a

nd po lic e me n o f H e nd e rs on

Cou nty a rewatc hin gthi s ju

ry to se e wh at theoutc ome is. And the implication beingthat–the implication could be dra wn that since they ’re all residents of Hende rson County

that they will be–that they

may be re quired in the futur e to see k protec tion and se rv ic e from law e nf

or c e me nt. ” Th e State dis a gre e d wi th thi s c ha ra c te ri zatio n o f t he edi toria l, saying, “ Ithink it j ust indicates therewer e two individuals that wereknown to the editor.” Cf. He nle yv . S tate , 576 S.W .2d 66, 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (“[T]he trial court’s r efusa l 16 to gr ant appe llant a pre tri al h earing to introduc e evide nce in support of his moti on for c hang e of venue pr eclude d a dete rmination, as contemplate d by our law, of

the community

attitude toward appellant a

nd constituted a deprivation of due proc ess.”)

. 898 S.W .2d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). 17 Id. at 828. 18 w hathappene d i n t hi s t r i al

. T he t r i al cour t r es ponded, 15
t he C our t i s not aw ar e, or i t ’ s not been br ought t o t he C our t ’ s at t ent i on any evidence that t he jur yhas viol at ed it s i nst ruct i on s. A nd t he C our t gave i t s i ns t r uct i ons and w i l l cont i nue t o emphasi ze th o se in stru c tio n s th ro u g h o u t th e trial. A n d w ith o u t an ye v id e n c e b ro u g h t to t he C our t , t he C our t w i l l deny t he m ot i on t o voi r di r e t he j ur yof i t s –r egar di ng a n y p u b l i c i t y. A p p ell an t n o w arg u es that the fa il u re to let h im m ak e an o ff er o f p roo f o n w h ethe r t h e jury

w as aff ect ed byt he medi a w as a cons t i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. T hi s poi nt of er r or i s cont r ol l ed 16 b y P o w e ll v. S ta te , a c a s e i n wh i c h we r e j e c t e d a n e a r l yi d e n t i c a l c l a i m. 17 I n P ow e ll , the def

endantar gued t hatt he t r i al cour t er r ed i n r efus i ng t o pol l t he ju ro rs– p rio r to trial b u t af ter th e yh a d b e e n e m p a n e led a n d sw o rn

– a b o u t a n e w sp a p e r a rticle

cover i ng a hear i ng on t he admi s s i bi l i t y of D N A evi dence

. A l t hough t he t r i al cour t r efus ed 18
t o pol l t he j ur yaboutt he ar t i cl e, it ad m o n ishe d t he j ur ynum er ous t i m es not t o r ead a nyM ay s Page 12

Id. 19 Id. See W.R . Fr othingham , Inte rroga tio n or Poll of Ju ro rs, Du ring Cr im ina l Tri al, as to 20 W he the r Th e

yHa v eRe ad

Ne wsp ap e r A rti c le

s Pe rta ini ng to A lle

ge d Cr im eor

theTria l, 15 A.L .R.2d 1152, *1 (“Thefew case s that involve this specific point all uphold the trial court whe re it re fuses to interrog ate, or ref

uses to le t a par

ty interrog ate, the jur ors as to the re adingof new spaper article s relating to the tria l or the crime. The de cisions ge nera lly turn on the fa ct that the trial c ourt had instructed the jury

not to read the article s or that therehad bee n no showingby the moving pa

rty that the juror s ha d in fa c t r e a d th e m.” ); United States v. J ackson , 649 F.2d 967, 976 (3rd Cir. 1981) ( “To re qu ir e thetria l c ourt

to c on du c t an ind ivi du a l vo ir dir e of a ll of the juror s, wh o have be e n r e pe ate dly and pr op e rly ins tr uc te d r e g ard ingne ws me dia repo rt s, wh e ne ve r t

he rearepr e

jud ic ia l ne ws me dia repor ts, rather than to limit the voi r di re to jurors, if any , who have seen or heard such reports, is not c on sis te nt w iththe‘l arg e dis c re tio n’ ne e de d by thec ourt to m ov e thetria l a lon gbo th e xpe dit iou sly and fa ir ly .” ); Y

ou ng v . S tate , 6 23 S.E .2 d 4 91 , 4 95 -9 6 ( Ga . 2 00 5) ; W e av e r v . S tate , 763 So. 2d 972, 9 7 7 ( A la

. Crim

. Ap p . 1998), o ve rr u led on other grounds by Ex parte Ric e , 766 So. 2d 143 (Ala. 1999) (“‘ In the absenc e of any alleg ation that any juror actua lly rea d [newspaper article s about the case ], we find no err or in the judg e’s f ailure to poll the jury to de termine whether or not any

juror may have re a d [ne ws pa

pe r a rt ic le s. ]’” ); Carly le v . S

tate , 428 N.E.2d 10, 13-14 ( Ind. 1981) (same); Sta tev . M ar sh all , 353 A.2d 756, 759 (Conn. 1974) (sa me). But see State v . Bey , 548 A.2d 846, 870 (N.J. 19 8 8 ) ( h o ld in g “ th at wh e r e a ti me ly , p r o p e r ly s u p p o rte d mi dtria l mo ti o n to p o ll the jury c on c e rn ingpr e

jud ic ia l pu

bli c ity is r e fu se d, and the re is a

re a lis tic po ssibil ity

that in fo rm atio n w ith the ca pacit y t o p re

j u d i ce the defe ndant may have r eac hed one or

more membe rs of the jury , the defe ndant must be g iven a ne w trial.”) . In Bey , the problem wa s that the jury may have r ead a

bout an e xtra ne ou s murd e r t

hat th e de fe nd ant h a d c omm itt e d. Th e c ourt state d, “ themidtria l pu

bl ici ty . . . disclosed that def

endant was g oing to betried for a sec ond murder a fter the completion of the first trial. Jurors e x posed to this publicity could have discovere d that the sec ond murder w as c omm itt e d c los e in t imea

nd in a sim ila r mann e r to the Al sto n mur de r. It is ha rd to i ma g inepu

bli c ity with a greater c apac ity

to prejudice a def

endant’ s case .” Id. at 869-70. n e w sp a p e r a rticle s c o n c e rn in g th e c a se . In th a t ca se , w e n o te d th a t th e trial ju d g e c o u ld 19 ei t herdenyt he def

endant ’ s r eques t for a j ur y pol l conce r ni ng t he ar t i cl e, or he coul d pol l t he j u r y a n d r i s k e x p o s i n g t h e m t o t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d c o n t e n t s o f t h e a r t i c l e f

o r t h e f i r s t t i me . By

r efus i ng t o pol l t he j ur yaboutt he ar t i cl e an d r ei t er at i ng i t s admoni s hm ent s , t he t r i al j udge d id h is b e st to p re se rv e th e in teg rityo f th e ju ry p a n e l. 20 T he s ame i s t r ue i n t hi s cas e. T he t r i al cour t r epea t edl yi ns t r uct ed t he j ur ypanel , t he in d iv id u a l ju ro rs se lec ted , a n d th e e m p a n e led ju ry n o t to re a d , w a tch , o r liste n to a n ym e d iaM ay s Page 13

s t or i es aboutt he ca s e.

* O n c e th e v e n ire p a n e l w a s q u a lifie d , th e ju d g e g a v e th re e se p a ra te in stru c tio n s n o t to re a d a n yn e w sp a p e r a rticle s, w a tch a n y tele v isio n re p o rts, o r liste n to a n yra d io re p o rts conce r ni ng t he ca s e. H e excus ed for caus e ever y panel m ember w ho w as i dent i fi ed as not bei ng able t o set asi de an op i nion fo rm ed ab ou t t he case from m edia r epo rt s.

* D u rin g th e in d iv id u a l v o ir d ire , the ju d g e a sk e d e a c h ju ro r if h e c o u ld c o m p lyw ith w ri t t en inst ruct i on s not t o read an y new spaper art i cl es, w at ch any t el evis i on report s, or l i s t en t o anyr adi o r epor t s conce r ni ng t he ca s e. E ach j ur or s ai d t hathe coul d.

* A t t he begi nni ng of t r i al , t he j udge i ns t r uct ed t he j ur y not t o r ead any n ew s paper ar t i cl es , w at ch anyt el evi s i on r epor t s , or l i s t en t o anyr adi o r epor t s aboutt he ca s e.

* A t t he end of

eac h dayof t r i al , befor e r el eas i ng t he j ur y , t he t r i al j udge i ns t r uct ed t he j ur y not t o r ead any new s paper ar t i cl es , w at ch any t el evi s i on r epor t s , or l i s t en t o any r adi o r epor t s conce r ni ng t he cas e. T he j ur y r ece i ved t hi s i ns t r uct i on on M ay 5, M ay 6, M ay7, M ay8, M ay9, M ay10, and M ay12. Fol l ow i ng P o w e ll , w e hol d t hatt he t r i al j udge di d not abus e hi s di s cr et i on by decl i ni ng t o pol l t he j ur yr at hert han r i s k expos i ng t he j ur yt o t he exi s t ence o f t he A t hens D ai l y Revi ew edi t or i al for t he fi r s t t i m e. I n fol l ow i ng t he gui di ng r ul es and pr i nci pl es of P o w e ll , t he t r i al cour t pr es er ved t he i nt egr i t yof t he j ur y . Poi nt of er r or one i s over r ul ed. Issu es R elate d to M en tal H ea lt h A ppel l antr ai s es a number of i s s ues r el at ed t o hi s m ent al heal t h on t he dayof t he

m u rd e rs . A . T h e C o n stitu tio n a lity o f E x e c u tin g th e S e v e r e ly M e n ta lly Ill In h is th ird p o in t o f e rro r, ap p e llan t as se rts th a t th e e x e c u tio n o f a se v e re lym e n tally i l l per s on offe nds t he Ei ght h A m endment ban on cr uel and unus ual puni s hm entand vi ol at es t he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of t he Four t eent h A m endm en t
. A ppel l antas s er t s t hat t heM ay s Page 14

536 U.S. 304 (2002). 21 543 U.S. 551 (2005). 22 Severa l sta

te courts haveexpressly

declined to e x tend the Atkins ru lin gto t he me nta lly

ill 23 in published opinions. See, e .g., Johnston v. State, 27 So. 3d 11 , 2 6- 27 (F la . 2 01 0) ; State v. Ketterer , 85 5 N .E .2 d 4 8 ( Oh io 2 00 6) ; Ma the ne yv . S tate , 8 33 N. E. 2d

45 4 ( Ind . 2 00 5) ; Hall v. Brannan , 670 S.E.2d 87 (Ga

. 2008). Others have done so in unpublished opinions. Cole ma n v . S tate , No. W2007- 02767 -C C A- R3-PD, 2010 WL118696 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2010) (not designated f or pu bli c atio n) ; Johnson v. Comm ., No. 2006-SC-000548-MR, 2008 WL 4270731 (Ky

. Sept. 18, 2008) (not designated f

or publication). F eder al courts havealso reje cted a ppellant’s argument for va rious rea sons. See, e .g., ShisInday v. Q uarterman , 511 F.3d 514 ( 5th Cir. 2007) (claim proc edura lly barr ed “for failure to pr esent the issue to the state c ourt. In addition, this circuit’s prec edent pr eclude s that argument, unless the petit ioner contends he is insane and theref ore inc ompetent to be executed.” ); In reNe v ille , 4 4 0 F. 3 d

2 2 0 , 2 2 1 (5 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g In reW oo ds, 15 5 F e d. Ap px. 1 32 , 1 36 (5 th Cir. 2005) and stating that applicant’s claim of mental i llness as a bar to execution did not rely upon a new rule of c onstitut ional law made retroa ctive by the Supreme Court ). t es t i m onyof hi s m ent al

- heal t h expert s w as uncont r over t ed and thatt heyes t abl i s hed t hat appel l anti s s ever el ym ent al l y i l l and hi s i l l nes s “adve r s el yaff ect ed” hi s behavi or on t he day of th e m u rde rs. H e ar gues t hatt he r ul es announce d byt he Supr eme C our t i n A tki ns v. V irg in ia , banni ng t he exec ut i on of t he m ent al l y r et ar ded, and in R operv. Si m m ons ,

21 22 banni ng t he exe cut i on of j uveni l e offe nder s , s houl d be ext ended t o t he m ent al l y i l l

. H e r el i es upon var i ous pr onouncement s i n t he i nt er nat i onal comm uni t y , and he ci t es l aw - r evi ew
a rticle s th a t a rg u e th a t th e re is n o ra tio n a l b a sis f o r d istin g u ish in g th e se v e re lym e n tally ill fr om t he ment al l yr et ar ded. H ow ever , appel lant does not ci t e anycas e fr om anyA m er i can j ur i s di ct i on t hat has hel d t hatt he A tki ns r ul e orr at i onal e appl i es t o t he ment al l yi l l

. W e have pr evi ous l yhel d, 23

a lb e it i n u n p u b lish e d o p in io n s, th a t “th e r e is n o a u th o rityf ro m th e S u p re m e C o u rt o r th is C our t s ugges t i ng t hatm ent al i l l nes s t hati s a ‘ cont r i but i ng fac t or ’ i n t he def endant ’ s act i onsM ay s Page 15

Tabler v . State, No. AP-75,677, 2009 WL4931882, *1 -2 (Te x . Crim. App. Dec. 16, 2009) 24 (n ot d e signate d f

or pu bli c atio n) ; s e e a l

s o S p ro u sev . State , No. AP-74,933, 2007 WL283152, *8 (Tex. Crim. App. J an. 31, 2007) ( not designated f or publication); Battaglia v. State, No. AP-74,348, 2005 WL1208949 at *10 & n. 39 (Tex. Crim. App. May 18, 2005) (not designated f or publication) (c i t i n g Colburn v. State, 966 S.W .2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)).

See A tkin s, 5 3 6 U
. S. at 3 1 2 ( “ th e ‘ c le ar e s t an d mo s t r e li a b le o b je c ti v e e v id e n c e of 25 co nt emp o rary

v al u es i s th e l egi s l at i o nen ac t e d b y th e co untry ’s l egi s l ature s . ’” ) ( qu o t i n g Penry v

. Lynaugh, 492 U .S. 30 2, 33 1 ( 19 89 )) ; see also Tabler , 2009 WL4931882, *2 (noting , in rejec ting claim that mentally

ill offender s should be exempt from execution, that defenda nt “does not demonstrate that there is a trend amongstate leg islatures to categ orica lly prohibit the imposit ion of capital punishment ag ainst mentally ill offender s.”). Appellant re lies on article 36.14 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure, which re quires 26 thetria l c ourt

to d ist inc tly

se t f or th t he law a pp lic a bleto t he c a se , a nd art ic le 38 .3 6( a ), wh ic h p e rm its the admis sion of evidence to show the accused’ s state of mind at the ti me of the offense as the leg al basis for his complaint. or t hat caus ed som e i m pai r m entor s om e di m i ni s hed ca paci t y , i s enough t o r enderone exe m pt fr om exec ut i on u n d er the E i ght h A m endment

. ” Fur t her m or e, appel l anthas not 24 demonst r a t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a t r e n d a mon g s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s t o c a t e g o r i c a l l y p r o h i b i t t he i m pos i t i on of ca pi t al puni s hm entagai ns t m ent al l y il l o ffe nder s . Fi nal l y , appel l anthas 25 fai l ed to show t hat, i f he d i d suff er fr om som e m ental i m pairm e n t a t th e t i m e of these

m u rd e rs, th a t im p a irm e n t w a s so se v e re th a t h e is ne c e ss a rily a n d c a teg o ric a llyles s m o ra lly cul pabl e t han t hos e w ho ar e notm ent al l y i l l

. W e, t her efor e, over r ul e poi nt of er r or num ber t hr ee. B . “D i m i ni s hed C apaci t y ” I nst ruct i on In h is fift h p o int of

erro r, ap p ell an t asserts tha t the tr ial jud g e v iolated h is st atuto ry 26 and cons t i t ut i onal due- pr oces s r i ght s bygi vi ng t he j ur yt he fol l ow i ng i ns t r uct i on: Y o u a r e f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d t h a t yo u m a y c o n s i d e r a n y m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n , i f a n y,M ay s Page 16

At thee nd of his nin e -p a g e lis t of

writt e n o bje c tio ns to t

he jur y char ge , a

pp e lla nt, in h is 27 objection number 25, se t out eleven r easons why he opposed a

ny limit ation upon “the infe renc e the jury may drawfrom the evidence of m ental dis ease or defect.” Thus, although appellant r equeste d a ju ry instruction on how mental illness may be conside red in de terminingwhether he ac ted intentionally or knowing ly , and the tria l judge g ave suc h an instruction, appe llant then complained about the wor ding of

the ac tual instruction give n. Appellant’s B rief a

t 49. 28 o f th e d e f e n d a n t, t h a t h e d id o r d id n o t ac t in ten tio n a ll y o r k n o w in g lyin comm i t t i ng t he al l eged of fens e, but y ou cannotcons i der anym ent al condi t i on, i f a n y, t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t l a c k e d t h e c a p a c i t y t o a c t i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r k n o w i n g l y. A t t r i al , appel l ant fi l ed a w r i t t en obj ect i on t o t he cour t ’ s char ge for fai l i ng t o i ns t r uct t he j ur yt hatevi dence of m ent al i l l nes s m aybe cons i der ed i n det er m i ni ng w het heror not he

a c ted in ten tio n a llyo r k n o w in g ly . A p p e llan tdid not s ug gestsp e c if ic la n g u a g e , so p re su m a b ly th e trial ju d g e d ra f

ted th e a b o v e in stru c tio n in re sp o n se to a p p e llan t’s w ritten re q u e st. 27 A pp el l ant argues on app eal t hat his “def ense w as that his act i ve, ser i ou s m ental i l l ness p re v e n te d h im f

ro m k n o w in g ly o r in te n tio n a lly k illin g a t th e m o m e n t h e p u lle d th e tr ig g e r.” 28 B u t th a t w a s n o t h is d e f e n se a t trial. N o w it n e s s te s ti f ie d th a t ap p e llan t– w ith o r w ith o u t a

m ent al i l l nes s –di d not know i ngl yor i nt ent i onal l ysh o o t D eput yO gbur n w i t h a s i ngl e s hot ri gh t betw een the ey es. Indeed , t he ev i den ce show ed that i m m ediat el y aft er he shot his fi rs t

v ictim , ap p e llan t sh o u ted , “I g o t o n e . W h e re ’s th e o th e r o n e ? ” b e f o re h e sh o t an o th e r d e p u ty i n t he hea d. N one of a ppel l ant ’ s exper t s t es t i fi ed t hathe di d not i nt end t hes e ac t i ons . I ndeed, appel l ant ’ s t r i al couns el for t hr i ght l yadmi t t ed dur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent at t he gui l t s t age t hat , “y es , a per s on can ha ve a pa r anoi d del us i on, s uffe r fr om par anoi a and i nt ent i onal l yand kn ow i ng l ydo w hat t hey w ant t o do , i n t his case, shoo t t w o po l i ce off i cers . ” A t t ri al , defe nseM ay s Page 17

Se eRu ffi n v . S tate , 27 0 S.W. 3d

58 6, 59 3, 59 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 29 160 S.W .3d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Ru ffi n , 270 S.W .3d at 594. 30 couns el s t at ed t hathe off er ed t he ment al

- i l l nes s t es t i m onyas “j us t an expl anat i on about w hat

w enton out t her e. ” A ppel l ant ’ s m ent al

- i l l nes s evi dence expl ai ned hi s act i ons and demonst r at ed hi s m ot i ve forki l l i ng t he deput i es –par anoi a, s us pi ci on, and di s t r us t of t he offi c e r s . I t d i d n o tr e b u t t h e c u l p a b l e me n t a l s t a t e o f “ i n t e n t i o n a l o r k n o wi n g ” c o n d u c t or rai se any l egal j ust i fi cat i on or exon erat i on for t he m urders

. A lth o u g h a p p e llan t a c k n o w led g e s th a t th e re is n o “ d im in ish e d c a p a c ity ” d e f e n se in T exas , he nonet hel es s ar gues t hatt he t r i al j udge er r ed byi ns t r uct i ng t he j ur y t hati t w as not

29 per m i t t ed t o cons i derm ent al

- i l l nes s evi dence t hatappel l ant“l acked the ca p aci t yt o act in te n tio n a lly o r k n o w in g ly.” A ppel l an t cit es t o t hi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n R u ffi n , b u t t h at ca se is n o t ana log o u s. In R u ffi n , t he def

endant( and ot her s ) t es t i fi ed t hathe s uffe r ed fr om bot h audi t or yand vi s ual del us i ons . H e t es t i fi ed t hatw hen he s hot at t he pol i ce of fi cer s , he t hought he w as s hoot i ng at “M u sli m s. ” H e li terall ysaw an d h ea rd M u sli m s. U n d er t h o se circum stan ce s, this C o u rt 30 hel d t hathe mi ghtbe ent i t l ed t o offe r exper t ps y chi atr i c t es t i m onyt hats om e peopl e w ho

su ff er from seriou s m en tal d isease s an d d elus ion s rea ll y ca n an d d o “se e” a n d “ h ea r” M u slim s (o r o th e r f

ig m e n ts o f

th e ir im a g in a tio n ) e v e n th o u g h th e yd o n o t ex ist. T h is

e v id e n c e w a s re lev a n t to re b u t th e e lem e n t th a t R u f f in in ten d e d to sh o o t po l i ce off i cers and

w oul d, i f bel i eved, l es s en t he cr i m e fr om a fi r s t - degr ee aggr avat ed as s aul t of a pol i ce of fi cerM ay s Page 18

Id. at 596-97. 31 Such evidenc e, if it had be en prof fer ed and admitted, would direc tly rebut the element that 32 elevated murder

under T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 19.02 to the capital murde r of a police off icer under T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 19.03(a) (1). Suc h e vid e nc e , if

it h a d b e e n p ro ff

e re d a nd a dmi tte d, wo uld

dir e c tly rebut th e c ulp a

ble 33 mental eleme nt of either c apital murder or murder

. Id. Se eRu ffi n , 270 S.W .3d at 5 9 5 -9 6 (expert testimony conce rninga def

endant’ s mental 34 illness “may , i n a p art icular c ase, beexcluded under othe r evide ntiary rules, such a s Rules 403 or 703-705, if the probative value of the proff ere d evidenc e is substantially outweighed by

the dang er of unfair prejudice , if the ex pert is i nsufficie ntly qualified, or the testimony is insufficiently rele vant or re liable under

our state’ s guidelines for e x pert testimony

. Such evidenc e may also be e x cluded if it does not truly

neg ate the r equire d mens rea .”); Jack son , 1 60 S.W. 3d

at 57 4; cf

., W ar d v . S tate , No. AP-75, 7 5 0, 2010 WL454980 at *2 (Te x . Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2010) (not designated f or publication) (tri al co urtd i d n o terr i nex cl u d i n g ex p ert ’s t es t i m o ny th atcap i t al -murd er

d ef en d an twas ps yc ho tic and

ha d pa ra no id de lus ion s wh ic h le d h im t o b e lie ve that th e rewa s a c on sp ir a c y

by c ity of fi c ia ls to harm him and c a us e d him to mur de r c ity

e mpl oye e ); se eals o United States v. Cameron, 90 7 F
. 2 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 6 7

- 6 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ E v i d e n c e o f f e r e d a s ‘ p s yc h i atr i c e v i d e n c e to n e g a te specific intent’ is admissible . . . when s u ch ev i d ence foc uses on the def endant’ s specific state of mind at the time of the charg ed offense,” but holding that defenda nt failed to demonstrate how her expert’s g ener alized psychiatric testimony would neg ate intent in drug -traf fickingprosec ution). to a s ec o n d -de g ree ag g rav ated assa u lt(an inten ti o n al sh o o ti n g at “M u sli m s”). 31 I n t he pr es entcas e, appel l antoffe r ed no evi dence t o s ugges t t hat he i nt ended t o s hoot any t h i n g o r a n y o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t h a t h e k i l l e d

. App e l l a n t o f f e r ed no 32 evidence to sugg est t hat he di d n ot i ntend t o sho o t a p e rso n . A l l of h i s m ental -i l l ness 33

e v id e n c e sh o w e d w h yh e in ten tio n a llya n d k n o w in g lyk ill e d th e d e p u ties : H e w a s p a ra n o id and t hought t heyhad “mi s t r eat ed” hi m . B ut m ot i ve i s not an el ement of m ur deror capi t al

m ur der

. Such m ent al

- i l l nes s t es t i m onym aybe r el evant for m i t i gat i on pur pos es dur i ng t he p u n ish m e n t p h a se , b u t ex p e rt tes tim o n yth a t d o e s n o t d ire c tly re b u t th e c u lp a b le m e n tal s tate

us ual l ym aybe exc l uded att he gui l t s t age. 34M ay s Page 19

See R uffin, Jackson , and W ar d, su pra . 35 T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 8.02(a) (“It is a defe nse to prosec ution that the actor through mistake 36 fo rm e d a re a so na ble be lie f a

bo ut a matte r of fa c t if his mis take n be lie f n e g ate d th e kin d o f c ulp a bil ity require d for c ommissi on of the off ense.” ). Hestate s th at “ a

re a so na blejuror might c on c lud e that Ma

y s a c tua lly

be lie ve d th at a

va st 37 and bruta l conspirac y

of ar med men, abusing

their status [as] peac e off icer s h ad k i l l edhis three I n s u m, t h e t r i a l j u d g e was n o t r e q u i r e d t o a d mi ta n ye x p e r t t e s t i mon yc oncer ni ng
a p p e llan t’s m e n tal illn e ss d u rin g th e g u iltsta g e b e c a u se it d id n o t d ire c tly re b u t h is c u lp a b le

m ens r ea . T hus , appel l ant w as not ent i t l ed t o any j ur y i ns t r uct i on conce r ni ng t hatevi dence

.

35 B u t hav ing req u ested su ch an instruction , ap p ell an t has n o t sho w n that h e su ff ere d an yh arm

w hen t he t r i al j udge gave t he j ur ya l egal l ycor r ect , i f unnec es s ar y , i ns t r uct i on conce r ni ng t he

us e of t hatevi dence

. A ppel l ant ’ s fi ft h poi nt of er r or i s over r ul ed. C . “M i s t ake of

F act ” I nst ruct i on In h is s e v e n th p o in t o f e rro r, ap p e llan t as se rts th a t th e trial ju d g e e rre d b yre f u sin g to

s ubm i t a j ur y i ns t r uct i on conce r ni ng m i s t ake of fac t bas ed on appe l l ant ’ s “par anoi d i deat i ons and ps y chot i c del us i ons . ” H e ar gues t hat t hi s evi dence ent i t l ed hi m t o an i ns t r uct i on on t he

s t at ut or ym i s t ake- of- fac t defe ns e beca us e he m ay have bel i eved t hatt he deput i es he ki l l ed 36

w e re n o t ac tin g in th e d is c h a rg e o f th e ir o f f icia l d u ties . H e p o sits th a t th e re c o rd su g g e sts th a t ap p e lla n t “ m is ta k e n lyb u t h o n e stlyb e liev e d th a t th e o f f ice rs w e re ro g u e c o p s, o u t to h a rm o r l y n c h h im a n d h is w if e , a n d p e rh a p s ta k e h is p ro p e rt y .” Fi r s t , appel lant does not ci t e t o anypor t i on of t he r ecor d t hatw oul d s uppor t s uch a bel i ef. N or di d he ci t e t he t r i al j udge t o any su ch evi dence i n t he r ecor d. H i s as s er t i on

37 38M ay s Page 20

brothers. The re w as a r elig ious fervor in May s’ words and actions. Some of May s’ words [ during thesta nd -o ff ] did no t se e m to fi t into t

he c onte xt in which t he y

we reutt e re d. Th e me nta l he a lth experts thought May s had a thought disorder.” Appellant’s B rief at 59. Th e e nti re ty

of a pp e lla nt’ s wri tte n o bje c tio n at tria l w a s a s f oll ow s: “ Th e De fe nd ant o bje c ts 38 to the Court’s failure t o i n s tru ct the jury on the law of

mistake of fa ct.” This objec tion is not sufficie nt to direct the trial jud ge’ s attention to the evidenc e upon which a ppellant would re ly

for entitlement of such a

n instruction. Se eGo od ric h v . S tate , 1 5 6 S. W. 3 d 141, 147-4 8 ( T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 200 5, pe t. re f’ d) (“ Whe n re qu e sti ng an instru c tio n on the de fe ns e of mis take of fa c t, the par ty must specify

the fa ct alleg ed to have been mistake n.”); W illiams v. State, 930 S.W .2d 898, 903 (Tex. A

pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref ’d). Abse nt a prope r re quest, the trial judg e does not err by failingto instruct the jury on the def

ense of mistake of fa ct. Po se

yv . S tate , 966 S.W .2d 57, 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 966 S.W .2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 39 Id . at 62. 40 is b a se d e n tirely u p o n sp e c u latio n a b o u t w h a t ap p e llan t m ig h t h a v e b e e n th in k in g o r c o u ld have t hought , but t her e i s no evi dence t hat s uppor t s a conc l us i on t hatappel l antdi d bel i eve t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e “ r o g u e c o p s ” w h o w e r e n o t a c t i n g i n l a w f u l d i s c h a r g e o f

a n o f f i c i a l d u t y. T he onl y evi dence t hatdi r ect l ys uppor t s appel l ant ’ s par anoi d s t at e of mi nd att he t i m e of t he

m ur derw as hi s s t at ement t o r epor t er s t hat he fel t “mi s t r eat ed. ” B ut t hat evi dence does not

ra ise a n y“ m ista k e ” o f

a sp e c if ic h isto ric a l f

a c t th a t, i f

tru e , w o u ld n e g a te h is in ten t to k ill D eput yO gbur n. T he i s s ue i n P os ey v . St at e, as i n t he p rese n t ca se, w as w het hert he 39 defe ndantw as ent i t l ed t o an j ur yi ns t r uct i on on t he defe ns i ve i s s ue of “mi s t ake of fac t ” w hen he di d not “pr oper l ypr es er ve” t hati s s ue bym aki ng a ti m ely an d adequa t e r eques t or obj ect i o n in the tr ial cour t
. T he purpos e of t he P os ey r ul e i s t o pr eventa par t yfr om 40 “s andbaggi ng” t he t r i al j udge byfai l i ng t o ap p ri se h im , and t he oppos i ng par t y , of w hatM ay s Page 21

Id . at 63 ; se eals o To lbe rt v . S tate , _ _ _ S. W. 3 d _ _ , _ _ _ , N o . PD

- 0 2 6 5 -09 , 2 0 1 0 WL 41 93 5 3 7 7 , * 2 n .6 (Tex. Crim. App. March 17, 2010) (“O ur dec ision in Posey wa s inte nd e d “ to discourage p art i es fr om sandbag g ing or lying be hind the log”and to discoura g e a de fenda nt from retry ing the caseon appea l unde r a new defe nsive theory , eff ectively g iving the de fenda

nt “two bites at the apple .”). See Goodrich , 156 S.W .3d at 147-48. 42 T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 1 .0 7( 42 ); se eW ink le yv . S tate , 123 S. W. 3 d

7 0 7 , 7 1 2 ( T e x. 43 Ap p . — Au s t i n2 0 0 3 , n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Ba ng v . S tate , 81 5 S.W. 2d 83 8, 84 1 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Christ i 1991, no pet.)). S e eGra nge r

v . S ta te, 3 S.W .3d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (“Whether appellant’ s 44 mistaken belief was ‘reasona ble,’ so as to comport with the require ments of § 8.02, should have be en left for the jury to decide a s trier of f

act.” ). Se e, e .g., King v . S

tate , 919 S.W .2d 819, 821-22 (T ex . App.—El Paso 1996, no pet.) 45 (def endant not entitled to instruction on mistake of fa ct wh en h e testified that he thought his wife wa s dea d at the tim e he c ho ke d he r wit h an e le c tric a l cord be c a

us e any su c h b e lie f w a s ma nif e stl y defe nsi ve jur yi nst ruct i on s t he p art yw ants and w hy he is enti t l ed to t hem

. B ecause 41 appel l antfai l ed t o t el l t he t r i al j udge w hat s peci fi c fac t he w as m i s t aken a bout , he w as not ent i t l ed t o an i ns t r uct i on on t hi s defe ns i ve i s s ue. 42 S e c o n d , ev e n if

a p p e llan t h a d th o u g h t th a t th e o f f ice rs w e re o u t to h a rm o r ly n c h h im

an d h is w ife (rathe r t h an arrest h im ), that b eli ef w as n o t a reaso n ab le on e. T h e statuto ry

m i s t ake- of- fac t defe n se ex p li ci t l yr equi r es t hatt he def endant ’ s m i s t aken be l i ef a bout t he exi s t ence of a f

acti s a “r eas onabl e” one “t hat w oul d be hel d byan or di nar yand pr udentm an i n t he s ame ci r cum stan ces as t he ac t or . ” A l t hough t he “r eas onabl enes s ” of a m i s t aken 43 b e lief is g e n e ra lly a q u e stio n f o r th e ju ry , a p p e llan t ca n n o t re lyu p o n e v id e n c e o f h is 44 par anoi a and ps y chot i c t hi nki ng t o r ai s e a “ r eas onab le” m is t aken be l i ef c oncer ni ng t he offi cer s ’ inten t i ons . T he l aw exami nes “r eas onabl enes s ” fr om t he per s pect i ve of a n 45M ay s Page 22

unrea sonable, as an ordina ry and prude nt person could a nd would have e asily

verifie d that fac t first); See People v . Mejia-Lenare s , 135 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1454, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 404, 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (statingthat a mistake-of -fa ct def ense “ cannot be predic ated upon de lusions which are the product of me ntal illness.”). Id

. 46 T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 1 9
. 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( mu r d e r o f a p e a c e o f f ic e r r e qu ir e s p r o o f

th at the 47 defe ndant committed murder a s defined in se ction 19.02(b)( 1) and “ the per son murders apeac e office r or fireman who is acting in the l awf ul discharg e of an official duty and who the pe rson knows is a pea ce of

fice r or f ireman” ). o rd in a ry a n d p ru d e n t p e rso n , n o t f ro m th a t o f

a p a ra n o id p sy c h o tic w h o is, b yp sy c h iatric defini t i on , “un reas on able” i n h i s i m agined s uspici on s, delusi on s, and fears. M ental dis ease i s not an at t r i but e of t he r eas onabl e, or di nar yand pr udentper s on. T hus , al t hough t he gene r al

r ul e i s t hatt he j ur ym us t det er m i ne the relat i ve cr edi bi l i t yof t he evi dence r ai s i ng a “r eas onabl e bel i ef” abouta fa ct , r el i ance upon par anoi d bel i efs and del us i ons negat es t he t ype of r eas onabl enes s t hatan or di nar yand prud en t per s on w oul d have unde r t he ci rcum st ances. 46 T hir d, any m ista ke o f fact t hat appell ant m i gh t hav e m ade ab ou t t he o ffi cers ’ i nt ent i ons or t hei r r i ght t o ar r es t hi m di d not negat e t he ki nd of cul pabi l i t yr equi r ed fort he

c o m m iss io n o f

c a p ital m u rd e r. T h e c u lp a b le m e n tal s tat e in se c tio n 1 9 .0 3 (a )(1 ) a p p lies to t he i nt ent i onal or know i ng m ur derof a pe ace offi cerw hom the ac t or know s i s a pea ce
o f f ice r. T o p ro v e e ith e r c a p ital m u rd e r o r a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt o f a p e a c e o f f ice r, th e S tate 47

m us t s how t hatt he pea ce of fi ceri s “ac t i ng i n t he l aw ful di s char ge of a n offi ci al dut y , ” butM ay s Page 23

See Salazar v. State, 643 S.W .2d 953, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (“[A] conviction [ for 48 aggr av ated assault on a pea ce of fice r] does not depend on whe ther the a rre st was leg al, or the defe ndant’s belief

about its leg ality

. . . . [W ]hi le the State must still prove the defe ndant knew or had been informed that he w as assa ulting a pe aceoffice r, proof that he also kne w the off icer was ‘l awf ull y dis c ha rg ingan o ff

ic ia l duty ’ i s unn e c e ssa

ry” ); se eals o M

on toya v . S

tate , 744 S.W .2d 15, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), overruled on othe r grounds , Cockr ell v. State , 9 3 3 S. W. 2 d 7 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1996) (evide nce in a capital- murder trial that the police o ff i ce r wa s makingan unauthorized war

rantless a rre st did not di sprove that the of fice r was i n th e lawf

ul discharg e of a

n officia l duty). See id. 49 See Lan k

sto n v . S tate , 827 S.W .2d 9 0 7 , 9 0 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (“As r eg ards 50 sp e c if ic ity [of an o bje c tio n], a ll a

pa rt y ha s to do to a

vo id t he fo rf e itureof a c omp la int

on a pp e a l is to l e t th e tria l ju dg e kn ow wh at he wants , why he thi nk s h ims e lf

e nti tle d to it, and

to d o s o c le arl y enough for the judg e to under stand him at a time when the trial court is in a prope r p o s i t i o n to do so me thi nga

bo ut i t.”); Sta rk

s v . S tate , 127 S.W .3d 127, 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 2003, st pet. dism’d) (to pre serve a complaint about the trial court’s f ailure to instruct on self

-def ense, a defe ndant mu s t m ake a timely objection that spec ifically states the leg al basis for the objection); t he defe ndant need not know t hat s peci fi c fac t
. T hus , anym i s t ake t hatappel l antm i ght have 48

m ade a bout w hatt he off i cer s’ i nt ent i ons w er e, or w het hert heyw er e ac t i ng i n t he l aw ful di s char ge of t hei r offi ci al dut yi n ar r es t i ng hi m , w oul d not negat e t he re qui r ed cul pabi l i t yfor

ca p it al m u rde r. 49 F o r all o f th ese rea so n s, w e o v erru le ap p ell an t’ s sev en th p o int of erro r. D . Jus t i f

i c at i on I ns t r uc t i ons In a p p e llan t’s e ig h th p o in t o f e rro r, h e c laim s tha t th e trial j u d g e e rre d in re f u sin g to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r yo n a v a r i e t yo f j u s t i f i c a t i o n d e f

e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g n e c e s s i t y , “ d e f e n s e o f h o me and pr oper t y , ” and de fens e of a not her

. A s w i t h poi nt of er r or s even, appel l anthas for fei t ed

an yerro r on ap p ea l bec au se h e f ail ed to sp ec ifyw h at fa cts o r l eg al t h eo ryw o u ld su p p o rt

s ub mi s s i o n o f

a n yo f t h e s e d e f

e n s e s . M e r e l ys u b mi t t i n g a mul t i

- p a g e l i s t o f b a r e - bones 50M ay s Page 24

W ill iam s v . S

tate , 930 S.W .2d 898, 903 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (de fenda nt’s st barereque st for an instruc tion on mis take of fac t was too g ener al to prese rve e rror beca use he f ailed to comply with art. 36.14 and “ distinctly specify” what fac t he was pur portedly mistaken about). Ap pe lla nt’ s o bje c tio ns we rea s f

oll ow s: Th e De fe nd ant o bje c ts t o th e Court ’s fa ilure to ins tr uc t the jur y on thelaw o f d e fe ns e of anothe r. The De fenda

nt objects to the failureto ins tru ct th e j ury on the law of

defe nse of home and pr operty
. T h e D e f e n d anto b j e c t s t o th e C o urt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o i n s tr

u c tth e j ur

y o nth e l awo f

n e c e s s i ty. Appellant filed a

n eight-pag e laundr

y list of bare- bones objec tions to the jury charg e. 51 W ilson v. State, 189 S.W . 1071, 1072 (Tex. Crim. App. 1916) (“Appe llant filed with the 52 jud g e se ve ra l gro un ds of

ob je c tio ns to h is c ha

rg e . H e a lso re qu e ste d s ome11 sp e c ial charg e s, a ll of which w ereref

used, except the one to disreg ard the second a nd third co unts above mentioned, which wa s g iven. In neither r equeste d charg e, nor in a ny way connec ted there with, did he g ive any rea son or statement why

it should be give n. This is essential in even a felony case .”). See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ar t. 3 6. 14 (s tatin gthat, b e fo rethec ourt ’s c ha rg e is g ive n to 53 the jur y , “ the de fe nd ant or his c ouns e l sh a ll h ave a re a so na bletim e to e xami ne thesame and he sh a ll presen t his ob

je c tio ns the re to i n wri tin g , d ist inc tly sp e c if yinge a c h gro un d o f o bje c tio n. Sa id objections may

embody err ors claim ed to have been c ommitt ed in the cha rg e, as w ell as er

rors claimed to havebeen c ommitt ed by omissions there from or in failing to charg e upon issues arising from the f acts.” ). This article require s the defendant to “distinctly specify” the gr ound–or basis–of his objection to the charg e and the ground–or basis–for any reque sted instructions that arise f rom the fac ts in evidence

. See W

illiams, 930 S.W .2d at 903. obj ect i ons t o t he fai l ur e t o i ncl ude var i ous s t at ut or ydefe ns es and af fi r m at i ve def

ens es does

n o t su ff ici ent l ydi r ectt he t r i al j udge’ s at t ent i on t o t he s peci fi c fa ct s or t heor ys uppor t i ng
s u b m is s io n o f

s u c h a c h a rg e . A s th is C o u rt n o te d a lm o s t o n e -h u n d re d y e a rs a g o , a 51 defe ndantw ho fi l es a l aundr y - l i s t of w r i t t en obj ect i ons t o t he char ge m us t al s o s peci fyt he l egal or fact ual r easons w hyhe b el i eves him sel f enti t l ed to su c h sp e c ial inst ruct i on s. 52 U nexpl ai ned l i s t s of obj ect i ons and r eques t s for i ns t r uct i ons r i s k bei ng co n sider ed

“ s a n d b a g g i n g ” o b

j e c t i o n s t h a t f

a i l t o p r e s e r v e a n yi s s u e f o r r e v i e w. 53 S e c o n d , this p o in t o f

e rro r is m u lti f

a rio u s b e c a u s e it r a is e s m o re th a n o n e sp e c if icM ay s Page 25

Se e, e .g., W

oo d v . S tate , 18 S.W .3d 642, 649 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 54 See T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 9 .2 2 (Nece ssi ty ) ( “ Con du c t is jus tif

ie d if thea c tor re a so na bly 55 be lie ve s th e c on du c t is imm e diate ly ne c e ssa ry to a vo id i mmi ne nt h arm

. . . . ” ); id. § 9
. 3 1 (S elfDef ense) (“a person is justified in using f orceag ainst another wh en an d to the degreethe ac tor re a so na bly be lie ve s the fo rc e is i mme diate ly ne c e ssa ry . . . . ” ); id. § 9 .3 2 ( De a dly fo rc e in d e fe ns e of a pe rson) (“ A per son is justified in using de adly forc e ag ainst another . . . when and to the de gree the a c tor re a so na

bly be lie ve s th e de a dly

fo rc e is i mme diate ly

ne c e ssa ry . . . . ” ); id. § 9. 33 (D e fe ns e of third per son) (“A person is justified in usingforc e or de adly forc e ag ainst another to pr otect a third pe rs on if , und e r t he c ir cum st ances as th e a c tor re a so na bly be lie ve s th e m to be

. . . . ” ); id. § 9.41 (P ro te c tio n o f o ne ’s own p ro pe rt y ) ( “ A p e rs on

in l awf ul p os se ssi on

of lan d or tan g ibl e , mo va

ble pr op e rt y is j us tif ie d in usin g fo rc e a g a ins t ano the r whe n a nd to t he de gre e thea c tor

re a so na bly believes the forc e is immediately nece ssary

. . . .”). compl ai nt and r i s ks r ej ect i on on t hat bas i s al one. I n t hi s s i ngl e poi nt , appel l anthas r ai s ed 54 a potpour r i of compl ai nt s conce r ni ng t he fa i l ur e t o gi ve i n str u cti ons on ( 1) nece s s i t y , ( 2) d e f e n s e o f a n o th e r, ( 3 ) d e f

e n s e o f “ h o m e a n d p ro p e rt y .” T hi r d, appel l ant fai l s t o acknow l edge t hat eac h of t hes e j us t i fi cat i on defe ns es r equi r es t hatt he def

endantr eas onabl ybel i ev e that h is c onducti s i m m edi at el ynece s s ar yt o avoi d a gr eat erhar m . A s w i t h t he st at ut or y m i s t ake- of- fac t defe ns e, a “r eas onabl e bel i ef” i s one t hat

w o u ld b e h eld b yan o rdin ary an d p rud en t perso n , n o t by a p ara n o id p sy ch o ti c. A p p ell an t’ s 55

r epea t ed cl ai m t hat“hi s par anoi d i deat i ons and ac t i ve psy chos i s ” ra i s e a “r eas onabl e bel i ef” t hathi s act i ons w er e j us t i fi ed i s s uppor t ed nei t herbyl aw nor comm on s ens e. T exas l aw does n o t rec ogni ze t he “or di nar yand prudent ” par anoi d ps y chot i c for pur pos es of Penal C ode j us t i fi cat i on defe ns es . T he onl y aff i r m at i ve defens e ava i l abl e under T exas l aw fo r th o se w ho com m i t cri m es w hil e sufferi ng from an ab no rm al m ental dis easeM ay s Page 26

T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 8.01 (“It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of 56 thec on du c t c ha

rg e d, thea c tor , a s a

re su lt o f s e ve reme nta l di se a se or de fe c t, did no t kn owthat hi s conduct wa s wrong .”). Se eJ ac k so n v . S tate , 160 S.W .3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Te x as law does not 57 re c ognizea le sse r fo rm of the ins anit y a ff ir mativ e de fe ns e .” ). Ap pe lla nt a tte mpt s to ana log ize his caseto Da rty

v . S tate , 994 S.W .2d 215 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). In th atca s e, the defe n d ant t e s ti f

ie d th at, d ur in ga tr a f f ic s to p , th e p o li c e ma

nthr e wh im

o nh is n e ighb o r ’ s c ar , b e at him with his flashlight, and place d him in a choke hold. Id. at 218. The de fenda nt denied kicking the offic er, but a dmitted that he used some for ce to e scapethe choke hold beca use he c ould not breathe. Id. An ordinar

y and prude nt person in the same situation mi ght have thought th i s use of forc e wa s rea sonable. B ut there w as no evide nce in Da rty that the def

endant wa s psychotic or para noid or otherwise actingunder unr easona ble delusions of per secution. The pre sent ca se is analog ous to the situation in Zwack v . S tate , 7 5 7 S. W. 2 d

6 6 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 1988, pet. re f’d) , in which the cour t of appe als held that the th defe ndant–who cla imed that he had pa ranoia and delusions o f per secution–wa s not entitled to an instruction on self-de fense . In Zwack, the defe ndant was c harg ed with attempted c apital murder of a police of

fice r for shooting the of

fi ce r wh o h ad p ulled his truck over . Z wac k enter ed a ple a of insanity but also reque sted a jury charg e on “self defe nse base d on an insane delusion.” The c ourt of appeals not ed, “There was strong evidence that Appellant was suffe ringunder a para noid delusion that he wa s bei ng ‘a

mbu sh e d’ by po lic e of

fi c e rs wh o inte nd e d to kill him, ” rathe r t ha n s imp ly arr e st him. Id . at 70. B ut, as the cour t noted, even if the circ umstances a s perc eived by the def endant we re true, he would not be entitl ed to a se lf-def ense instruc tion becausehe had f ailed to offe r any

evidenc e that hi s u se of

fo rc e wa s ju sti fi e d, a

“ re a so na blepe rs on ” wo uld

no t have re tr e ate d, and

thede a dly fo rc e wa s imme diate ly

ne c e ssa ry to p ro te c t th e de fend ant f ro m th e oth e r’ s u se of

un lawf ul d e a dly forc e. Id. The same is true here: appellant’s us e of forc e was not justi fied; a “ rea sonable pe rson” woul d h av e re tre ated ( or surre ndere d); and the of fice rs did not initi ally

use unlawf

ul deadly forc e ag ainst him. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE § 9.31. Appellant’s B rief a

t 64-68. 58 o r d e f e c t is in sa n ityu n d e r S e c tio n 8 .0 1
. A p p e llan t d id n o t a ss e rt a n in sa n ity d e f e n se a t trial, 56 and he c annotnow cl ai m ent i t l ement t o s om e ot hers t at ut or ydefe ns e bas ed upon hi s m ent al d ise a se o r d e f

e c t. A p p e llan t ar g u e s th a t, ev e n th o u g h th e P e n a l C o d e “ d o e s n o t ex p licitly 57 cont ai n an d ca rry for w ar d al l of t he t r adi t i onal comm on l aw doct r i nes r egar di ng ju s ti f ic a ti o n ,” w e sh o u ld e x p a n d u p o n th e P e n a l C o d e to e m b o d ya f re e -sta n d in g “ c a stle 58 d o c trin e ” th a t w o u ld p e rm it p ro p e rtyo w n e rs to k ill p o lice o f f ice rs w h o c o m e o n th e irM ay s Page 27

Se eGi esb e rg

v . S tate , 984 S.W .2d 245, 2 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (“[B]eca use the 59 auth o r it y to e s ta b li s h wh at c o n s ti tute s a d e f e n s e r e s ts s o le ly w it

h th e L e g is latu

r e , this Court conclude s a def

ense which is not recognized by the L eg islature as e ither a de fense o r as an a ff ir mativ e de fe ns e do e s n ot w arr ant a sepa rate ins tr uc tio n. ” ); W

ill is v . S tate , 790 S.W .2d 307, 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Se eSa un de rs v . S

tate , 840 S.W .2d 390, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 60 Appellant’s B rief a

t 80. 61 p ro p e rtyin re sp o n se to a 9 1 1 “ d o m e stic v io len c e -g u n sh o ts” c a ll. T h is w e w o u ld d e c lin e to do even i f w e had t he aut hor i t yt o cr eat e a nons t at ut or yj us t i fi cat i on defe ns e. 59 F o r all o f th e a b o v e re aso n s, w e o v erru le ap p ell an t’ s eig h th p o int of erro r. E . L es s er- I ncl uded O f f ens es R ai s ed by M ent al - H eal t h E vi dence In h is te n th p o in t o f e rro r, a p p e llan t c o n ten d s tha t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b yre f u sin g to

su b m it c h a rg e s o n m a n sla u g h ter a n d c rim in a llyn e g lig e n t h o m icid e b e c a u se a re a so n a b le j ur or m i ght dr aw var i ous i nfer ence s t hatcoul d s uppor t the n ot i on t hatA ppel l antact ed

r eckl es s l y or negl i gent l y , r at her t han i nt ent i onal l yor know i ngl y . A ppel l antnot es t hati f any evi dence , r egar dl es s of i t s s t r engt h or cr edi bi l i t y , r ai s es t he i s s ue t hatt he defenda nt w as g u ilt yo n ly o f th e les se r o f f e n se , th e n th e c h a rg e m u st b e g iv e n . H e p o sits th a t a r e a so n a b le 60 j ur or “mi ght deem A ppel l ant ’ s act of s hoot i ng O ffi cer O gbur n a r eckl es s one, r at hert han t he

resu lto f a co n scio u s d ec isi o n to co m m itan u n law fu l kil li n g ” b e c a u s e o f a p p ell an t’ s ps y chot i c par anoi a. A l t er nat i vel y , he ar gues t hat “t he t es t i m ony of D r . V ai l , w ho di agnos ed 61

an ac ti v e p sy ch o sis, D r. K essn er, w h o fo u n d p ara n o id ide ati o n s an d a tho u g h t disord er,
c o mb i n e d wi t h Of

f i c e r Va l e n t i n e ’ s t e s t i mo n y d e s c r i b i n g h o w a s t r a n g e l o o k s u d d e n l yc a meM ay s Page 28

Id. at 82. 62 Se eCoo k

v . S tate , 884 S.W .2d 485, 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). 63 Se eHa mp ton v . S

tate , 109 S.W .3d 437, 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (bef ore oneis entitled 64 to a n in str uc tio n o n a

le sse r- includ ed off

ense , th e remus t be“ a ff ir mativ e ” e vid e nc e “ dir e c tly g erma ne” to the e x istence of

the lesser -included of

fense ). Se eBu rn e tt v . S

tate , 8 6 5 S
. W
. 2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 9 ( T e x . Ap p . — S an Ant o n i o 1 9 9 3 , p e t
. r e f ’ d )

. In 65 Bu rn e tt , the cour

t of appe als explained, for a defe ndant to b e en t itled to a jury charg e on involuntary

manslaughter or criminally

neg lige nt homicide, the re cord must co n tain “some” evidenc e that the de fe nd ant d id no t in ten d th e re su lti ngde ath o r k no w that it

wa s r e a so na

bly c e rt a in to o c c ur . I f s uc h e vid e nc e is p re se nt, there c or d mu st t hen be ex ami ned to s e e if it ind ic ate s whe the r t

he de fe nd ant w a s awa reor un awa re of the risk that his conduct could re sult in the unintentional killing of the dece ased. Id

. o v e r M r. M a y s ’ f

a c e c o m b in e to ra is e th e is s u e o f a f a ilu re to p e rc e iv e ri s k .” 62 T he cul pabl e ment al s t at e forcapi t al m ur der , how ever , r efe r s t o the r es ul t of t he

c o n d u c t

– a p e r s o n ’ s d e a t h

– n o t t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h a t c o n d u c t
. Tha t i s , t h e r e mu s t b e s o me 63 af firm ati v e e v iden ce , fro m so m e so u rce , that at the m o m en t app ell an t sho t D ep u tyO g b u rn 64 in th e h e a d w it h h is d e e r rif le, h e d id n o t in ten d h is d e a th o r k n o w th a t itw a s re a so n a b ly

cer t ai n t o occur . A ppel l antfai l s t o poi nt t o anyevi denc e in the t r i al r ecor d t hat 65

a f f irm a tiv e ly sh o w s tha t h e w a s eith e r rec k les s o r ne g lig e n t a b o u t th e lik e lih o o d th a t a d e a th

w oul d occuratt he mom enthe s hot D eput yO gbur n. I ndeed , appel l ant ’ s ver yfi r s t w or ds im m e d iate ly a f

te r s h o o tin g th e d e p u tyw e re : “W h e re ’s th e o th e r o n e ? I’ll tak e h im o u t,

w her e i s he?” A t m os t , appel l ant ’ s evi dence of a ment al i l l nes s or i m pai r m entm i ght demonst r at e s om e conf

us i on aboutt he ci r c u ms t a n c e s s u rr o u n d i n g h i s o v e r - a l l conductdur i ng th e sta n d -o f

f , b u t n o n e o f

th a t ev id e n c e a f

f irm a tiv e ly sh o w s tha t a p p e llan t d id n o t in ten d toM ay s Page 29

Appellant’s B rief a

t 75. 66 In the 1994 Penal Code re visions, the Tex as L eg i s l at ure re peale d the forme r voluntary 67 manslaughter statute a

nd made sudde n passion an issue to be c onsidered a t the punishment stageof a murde r trial. Se eMo orev . S tate , 969 S.W .2d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim

. Ap p . 1 9 9 8 ). But e vidence of “sudden passion” or provocation is admissible a nd rele vant to the mitigation issue. See W esbrook v . S tate , 2 9 S. W.3 d 103 , 113 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ) (“ Th e L e g isl atur e , thro ugh it s b ro a d p ow e r t o classify crimes and those who stand acc used of crimes, chose not to per mit the defense of “sudde n passion” in the conte x t o f cap i t al murder” ; stating that “ the issue of ‘sudde n passion’ could be considere d only

as a mitig atingcirc ums t an ce for the jur y when de cidingthe sec ond punishment issue.”). 29 S.W . 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1895).

68 77 S.W . 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903). 69 Appellant’s B rief a

t 75. 70 k ill w h e n h e s h o t D e p u ty O g b u rn . A p p e lla n t’ s te n th p o in t o f e rr o r i s o v e rr u le d

. Ot h e r Gu i l t - S t a g e J u r y - I n s t r u c t i o n Cl a i ms A . Sud den P as s i on and P rovocat i on Ins t ruct i on In h is n in th p o in t o f

e rro r, ap p e llan t co n ten d s th a t th e trial ju d g e e rre d in f a ili n g to in stru c t th e ju ry o n th e “ tra d iti o n a l” d e f e n se s o f su d d e n p a ss io n a n d p ro v o c a tio n . H e a ss e rts t hat“[s ] udden pas s i on and pr ovocat i on have a l w ay s red u ce d t he degr ee of cr i m i nal cul pabi l i t yi n T exas . ” T hus , t he Legi s l at ur e di d not h av e t he aut hor i t yt o el i m i nat e t he 66 i s s ues of “ su d den pas s i on” and “ pr ovocat i on” dur i ng t he gui l t phas e of a capi t al

- m ur der tr ia l. H e re lie s u p o n a n 1 8 9 5 c a s e , L a rs o n v . S ta te , a n d a 1 9 0 3 c a s e , V a n n v . S ta te , for 67 68 69
t he p rop o si t i on t hatt hos e ca s es pl ace d “l i t t l e, i f any , r el i ance on anys t at ut or yor
cons t i t ut i onal pr ovi s i on” i n s t at i ng t hat t he defe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o j ur yi ns t r uct i ons on

m an slau g h ter. In b o th o f th o se c ase s, h o w ev er, t h is C o u rt d id re lyu p o n ex tant stat u tory 70M ay s Page 30

See Larson , 2 9 S. W. at 78 3 ( ho ldi ngtha t “ it h a s b e e n h e ld by thi s c ourt that th e a de qu ate 71 cause s laid down in the statutes to c re ate su c h p a ssi on . . .” ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; Vann , 77 S.W . at 816 (“A ppellant contends, and we think cor rec tly , that he had the right to have a c harg e on manslaughter, unfetter ed by a charg e on provocation with the appare nt intention to ki ll; and also that, under the law an d th efac ts , he wa s entitled to a clea r and unequivoc al cha

rg e on self- defe nse, unlimited by the law in reg ard to provokinga diffic ulty .”) ( emphasis adde d). See W esbrook, 29 S.W .3d at 112-13 (“The L eg islature is ve sted with the lawmakingpower 72 of the pe ople in that it alone ‘may define crimes a

nd presc ribe pe nalt i es . ’
. . . The L eg islature, throu gh it s b ro a d p ow e r t o c la ssi fy c ri me s a nd tho se wh o s tand

a c c used of c ri me s, c ho se no t to permit the def

ense of “sudden pa ssion” in the context of capital murder .”). l aw , expl i ci t l yi n Lars on a n d im p licitlyin V ann . 71 T her e i s no fr ee- fl oat i ng, non- s t at ut or y , comm on- l aw r i ght t o an i n s tru c t i o n on s udden p assio n an d p rov o ca ti o n in a c ap it al-m u rde r t ri al. W e h av e p rev iou sly rejected ap p ell an t’ s cont ent i on, and hi s pr es entar gum ent s fai l t o per s uade us t hat t he T exas L egi s l at ur e di d not

72 have a ut hor i t yt o el i m i nat e t he for m ers t at ut or yoffe ns e of “s udden pas s i on” mansl aught er fr om cons i der at i on i n t he ca pi t al

- m ur dercont ext
. W e over r ul e poi nt of er r or ni ne. B. Cons t i t ut i o na l i t y o f “ Law f ul Di s c ha r g e o f

a n Of f i c i a l Dut y” I n hi s el event h poi nt of er r or , appel l ant cl ai m s t hatt he aggr avat i ng el ement of ca pi t al

m ur der–t he i nt ent i onal ki l l i ng of a pea ce of fi cer“w ho i s act i ng i n t he l aw ful di s char ge of a n offi ci al dut y ”–i s u n cons t i t ut i onal l yvague. A t t r i al , appel l antm oved fora di r ect ed ver di ct cl ai m i ng t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uff ici en t t o pr ove t hatt he off i cer s w er e di s char gi ng an offi ci al dut y , and he obj ect ed t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o defi n e the p h rase “ac t i ng i n t he law fu l disch arg e o f a n o ff ici al du ty
. ” H e do es no t cit e t o an y p o rt ion o f t h e tri al reco rd w h ere h e a ss e rte d th a t th e p h ra se w a s “ u n c o n stitu tio n a llyv a g u e .” A p p e llan t d id n o t m a k e th isM ay s Page 31

See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1( a )( 1) ; se eals o Cur ry v . S tate , 9 10 S.W. 2d

49 0, 49 6 ( Te x. Cr im. 73 Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ) (ap pellant waive d his challeng e to statute as vague as a pplied beca

use he did not specific ally

object at trial). 744 S.W .2d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), ov e rru le d on o the r g ro un ds, Co c k

re ll v . S tate , 933 74 S.W .2d 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Id. at 29 ; se eals o H

ug he s v . S tate , 897 S.W .2 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 7 -9 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); 75 Gu e rra v . S

tate , 771 S.W .2d 453, 460-61 (Te x . Crim. App. 1988). Ha ll v . S tate , 158 S.W .3d 470, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 76 cons t i t ut i onal vaguene s s ar gum ent i n t he t r i al cour t ; t her efor e, hi s compl ai nt i s not pr es er ved f o r r e v i e w. 73 A t anyrat e, t he t er m i s not uncons t i t ut i onal l yvague. A s w e have pr evi ous l ys t at ed i n Mo n to y a v . S ta te , a n o th e r c a p ita l- m u rd e r c a s e ,

74 W het her[t he dec eas ed pol i ce of fi cer ] w as m aki ng a law fu l ar r es t i s not r el evantt o det er m i ni ng i f [he ] w as act i ng i n t he l aw ful di s char ge of hi s offi ci al dut i es . A pol i ce offi cer i s s t i l l act i ng w i t hi n t he l aw ful di s char ge of hi s offi ci al d u ties w hen he m akes an un l aw ful arr est , so l on g as he i s act i ng w i t hin h is ca p ac it yas a p ea ce o ff

icer. 75 M o re re c e n tly , w e h a v e re p e a ted th a t “a s lo n g a s th e o f f ice r w a s a c tin g w ith in h is c a p a c ity

a s a p e a c e o f

f ice r, h e w a s a c tin g w ith in th e la w f u l d isc h a rg e o f

h is o f f icia l d u ties .” It is

76 undi s put ed i n t hi s cas e t hat al l of t he off i cer s i nvol ved, begi nni ng w i t h D eput i es V al ent i ne, Sander s , W ar d, O gbur n, and H abel t , w er e ac t i ng i n t he l aw ful di s charg e o f their dut i es as po l i ce of fi cers . A pp el l ant m ay hav e fel t t hat t he o ffi cers sh o u ldn ’t have r es ponded t o t he 911

c all o r sh o u ldn ’t h a v e t r i e d t o a r r e s t h i m, b u t h e n e v e r s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e s e me n wer e not pol i ce of fi cer s or t hatt heyw er e notact i ng w i t hi n t hei r capa ci t y as pol i ce offi cer s dur i ng t he

s ta n d -o f f

.M ay s Page 32

Se e Dani e ls v . S

tate , 754 S.W .2d 214, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (noting that, when 77 words ar e not defined, they are ordinarily g iven their plain mea

ning unle ss the statute clea rly shows that th e y we reus e d in

so me oth e r s e ns e ); El

yv . S tate , 582 S.W .2d 416, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (statingthat, in the abse nce of specia l definitions, statutory languag e under

attack a s vague ca

n be measure d by

common understandingand pra ctices or construed in the se nse g ener ally understood). 15 2 S. W.3 d 1 05 , 1 15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); se e als o O c ho a v . S tate , 119 S.W .3d 825, 78 828-29 (Te x . App.—San Anto n io 2003, no pet.) (c ollectingTexas case s holding that g iving a n F u rth e rm o re , the p h ra se “ law f u l d isc h a rg e o f

a n o f f ici a l d u ty” is n o t sta tu to rily defi ned, but i t does have a n or di nar ym eani ng t hatj ur or s can appl y us i ng t hei r ow n comm on
se n se : T h e p e rso n k ill e d w a s a p o lice o f f ice r w h o w a s, a t th e tim e o f h is d e a th , law f

u lly 77

ac ti n g as a p o li ce o ff

icer. W e o v erru le ap p ell an t’ s elev en th p o int of erro r. C . The Tri al C our t ’ s I ns t r uc t i on o n R e as ona bl e D oubt I n hi s s i xt h poi nt of er r or , appel l antcompl ai ns t h at t he t r i al j udge “di l ut ed” t he

r eas onabl e- doubt s t andar d i n hi s i ns t r uct i ons t o t he j ur y . A t t r i al , he obj ect ed t hatt he t r i al

cour t fai l ed t o expl ai n t o t he j ur or s t hatt he r eas onabl e- doubt s t andar d i s a “hi gh bur den of p ro o f th a t m a yb e se t b ye a c h in d iv id u a l ju ro r a t an yd e g re e o f c e r ta in tyles s th a n a b so lu te

cer t ai nt y . ” H e al s o obj ect ed t hatt he j ur yi ns t r uct i ons fai l ed t o i ns t r u ct th e j ur yon “prepo nd erance of the evidence” a nd “cl ear and co nv i ncing ev i den c e” and exp l ai n h ow t ho se
s ta n d a rd s d if

f e r f ro m p ro o f

b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. T he tr i al j ud ge inst ruct ed the j uryas fol l ow s: It is n o t re q u ire d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n p ro v e g u iltb e y o n d a ll p o ss ib le d o u b t. It is re q u ire d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n ’s p ro o f e x c lu d e s a ll “re a so n a b le d o u b t” c o n c e rn in g th e d e f

e n d a n t’s g u ilt

. I n W o o d s v . S ta te , w e h e ld th a t g iv in g th is s a m e in stru c tio n to th e ju ry in a c a p ital-

78M ay s Page 33

instruction reg arding“all possible doubt” is not err or). 511 U.S. 1 (1994). 79 Id . at 5. 80 Se e Pa uls on v . S

tate , 2 8 S
. W
. 3 d

5 7 0 , 5 7 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Victor and noting 81 that “the be tter pra ctice is to g ive no def inition of reasona

ble doubt at all to the jury”). In this point of error, appellant devotes much of his discussion to purported c onstitut ional 82 defici en cies in the futur e-da ng erousne ss special issue. To the e x tent that appellant r aises matter s other than the leg al sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to support the first spec ial issue, we f ind this poi nt of er ror multifarious a

nd decline to a ddress those matter s. Se eW oo d v . S tate , 18 S.W .3d 642, 649 n. 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). F ur the r, argume nts sim ila

r t o th os e ma de by

a pp e lla nt w e rere c e ntl y reje cted in Russe au v . S

tate , 291 S.W .3d 426, 433-34 (Te x . Crim. App. 2009). m urder t ri al w as not an abu se of d i scr et i on . A pp el l ant ci t es W oods , but ar gues t hatw e fa i l ed t o i ncl ude any di s cus s i on of V i ct orv. N ebr as ka i n t hatcas e. I n V i ct or , the S u p rem e C o u rt 79 hel d t hatt he s t andar d o f “bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ” i s a due- pr oces s r equi r ement i n a
c rim in a l ca se , b u t th a t th e C o n stitu tio n n e ith e r p ro h ib its trial ju d g e s from d e f in in g re a so n a b le d o u b t n o r r e q u i r e s t h e m t o d o s o . Ap p e l l a n t f a i l s t o e x p l a i n h o w V

i ct oraff ect s our 80

r eas oni ng i n W

oods . B o th c a se s s tate th a t c o u rts m a y o r m a y n o t d e f in e th e ter m “ re a so n a b le doubt

. ” I n T ex as, w e h ave s ai d t hati t i s “t he bet t erpr act i ce” not t o defi ne t hatt er m , and V i ct ord o es n o t sug g est o therw ise. W e o v erru le ap p ell an t’ s sixth p o int of erro r. 81 I s s ues R el at i ng t o t he P uni s hm ent St age A . S u ff

i ci en cy of t h e E viden ce to Su p p ort t h e F i n d i n g o f Fu ture D an gero u sness In h is f o u rte e n th p o in t o f e rro r, a p p e llan t c o n ten d s th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su f f icie n t to

s uppor t t he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng on t he fut ur e- danger ous nes s i s s ue. A ppel l ants t at es t hat“[t ] he 82

cr i m e fa ct s i n t hi s cas e ar e notenough t o s w eep a w ayt he good i n M ay s ’ [s ] l i fe hi s t or y ” andM ay s Page 34

See Keeton v. State, 724 S.W .2d 58, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Amongthose fac tors are : 83 (1) the c ircumstance s of the ca pital offense , including the defe ndant’s state of mind and whether he was wor king a lone or with o th er parties; (2) the calc ulated natur e of the defe ndant’s ac ts; (3) the fore thought a

nd deliber at en ess exhibit ed by the crime’s execution; (4) the e x istence of a prior th a t “[ w ]ith th e to o ls a n d f a c ili ties a t th e d isp o sa l o f T e x a s c o rre c tio n a l p e rso n n e l, it w o u ld be a r ar e pr i s oneri ndeed w ho coul d pr es entm uch of a t hr eatt hatw oul d ‘ cont i nue’ over t i m e. ” These ar gum ent s w er e pr es ent ed t o, but r ej ect ed by , t he j ur yatt he puni s hm ents t age. T he evi dence att r i al s how ed t hatappel l ant , w i t hout w ar ni ng, s uddenl yt ur ned fr om
a ca l m , cool , and pol i t e gent l eman di s cus s i ng m at t er s w i t h an i nqui r i ng deput yi nt o a vi ol ent sh arp sh o o te r w h o inten ti o n all yk il led tw o p o li ce o ff icers an d seriou slyw o u n d ed a third duri n g an hour

- l ong s t and- off i nvol vi ng m or e t han a doz en off i cer s . T he vi ol ence began

w h e n D e p u t y V a l e n t i n e t o l d a p p e l l a n t t h a t h e w a s u n d e r a r r e s t ; a p p e l l a n t r e f u s e d t o o b e y, l i s t en t o, or r eas on w i t h an aut hor i t yfi gur e. H i s r eac t i on t o t he exer ci s e of a ut hor i t ybya l aw enfor cement offi cer w as vi ol ent
. A ppel l ant j us t i fi ed hi s m ur der ous conduct by s t at i ng t hat he had be en “mi s t r eat ed” byt he off i cer s . T he j ur yconvi ct ed appe l l antof ca pi t al m ur der , and i t s onl yt w o puni s hm ent choi ces w er e pri s on or deat h. Pr i s on i s a par t of “s oci et y , ”and t he f u tu re -d a n g e ro u sn e ss iss u e i ncludes con side ra tio n o f a p p e llan t’s lik e lyf

u tu re b e h a v io r w h ile i n pr i s on for l i fe. T he pr i s on s y s t em i s r un byl aw enfor cement and cor r ect i onal offi ci al s , and anyper s on s ent ence d t o pr i s on m us t obeyt hos e aut hor i t yfi gur es , r egar dl es s of w het hert hey fee l t heyar e bei ng “mi s t r eat ed. ” A jury is p erm it ted t o co n side r a va ri ety o f fa ctors w h en d eterm ining w h ethe r a d e f e n d a n t w ill p o se a c o n tin u in g th re a t to so c iety

. V iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to 83M ay s Page 35

crim in a l r e c o r d , an d

th e s e v e r it

y o f th e p r io r

c r im e s ; ( 5 ) th e d e f

e n d ant’ s a g e an d

persona l circ umstances at the time of the off ense; (6) whether

the def endant wa s actingunder dur ess or the domination of another a

t the time of the offense; (7) psychiatric evidenc e; and ( 8) cha rac ter e vidence

. Id. It is fr e qu e ntl y

sa id t hat “ thec ir c umstance s o f t he of fe ns e its e lf

‘c an b e amon gthemos t reve alingevid en ce o f futuredang erousne ss and alone ma y be suff icient to support an af

firmative answe r to that specia l issue.’” Druery v . State, 225 S.W .3d 491, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Se e, e .g., W

il liams v . S

tate , 2 70 S.W. 3d

11 2, 13 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ) ( a jur y c ou ld 84 r e a s o n a b l y r e j e c t th e d e f

e n d ant ’ s c l a i mth atth e c o mm i s s i o no f c a p i t a l o f f e n s e w a s m e r e l y a temporar y depar ture from his usual “benign” crimes and find that he w as incorrigible)

. Ap pe lla nt’ s r e qu e ste d in str

uc tio ns we rea s f

oll ow s: 85 (1) “That its consideration of victim impact evidenc e should not be conduc ted in connec tion with the future da

ng erousne ss issue”; ( 2 ) “ T h at i t s c o n s i d e r at i o n o f v i c t i m i mp a c t e v i d e n c e d i d n o t r e l i e v e th e s t at e o f i t s b ur de n to prove the ‘futuredang erousne ss’ specia l issue beyond a re asonable doubt”; (3) “To disreg ard victim impact evide n ce th at wa s not shown to be within the knowledg e or t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct , t he ci r cumst ance s of t hi s offe ns e, i ncl udi ng t h e ev idence t hat he del i ber at el yki l l ed t w o pol i ce of fi cer s , as w el l as t he evi dence of a p p ell an t ’ s pr i or confr ont at i ons w i t h aut hor i t yfi gur es , s uppor t a fi ndi ng t hatt her e i s a pr obabi l i t yt hat

a p p e llan t w o u ld c o m m it f u tu re a c ts o f v io len c e (q u ite p o ss ib ly a g a in st a u th o rity f ig u re s) in p ri so n . W e o v erru le ap p ell an t’ s fo u rt ee n th p o int of erro r. 84 B . V i ct i m - I m pact E vi dence. I n hi s t w el ft h poi nt of er r or , appel l antr ai s es s i x s u b -i ssu es: four r el at e t o t he t r i al jud g e’s ref

u sal t o g ive re q u ested v ict im -i m p ac t instruc ti o n s an d tw o relate to the tr ial jud g e’s admi s s i on of vi ct i m - i m pactand vi ct i m - char act erevi dence

. R egar ding h is i ns t r uct i on- bas ed compl ai nt s , appel l antar gues t hatt he t r i al j udge

v iolated th e E igh th an d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en ts i n ref u sing to ex p li cit lyli m itthe ju ry ’s

co n s i d e r a t i o n o f

v i ct i m - i m pactevi dence

. A ppel l antcl ai m s ent i t l ement t o t hes e i ns t r uct i ons 85M ay s Page 36

rea sonable e x pectation of the defe ndant”; (4) “Not to make a c omparative worth ana ly sis of the value of the victims to their families and community

compar ed to the def

endant or other membe rs of socie ty .” 983 S.W .2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 86 Id . at 263. 87 Id. at 262. 88 232 S.W .3d 77, 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 89 Id. 90 bas ed on Mo sle

y v . S ta te , a c a se in w h ich w e u rg e d trial co u rts “to p lac e a p p ro p ria te lim its

86 upon t he am o unt , ki nd, and s our ce of vi ct i m i m pactand cha r act erevi dence

. ” T he t r i al 87 j ud ge d i d n ot er r i n refusi ng t he requ est ed inst ruct i on s. Fi r s t , appel l antover s t at es t he hol di ng i n Mos l ey . W h at w as e n co u rag ed i n M os l ey w as t he us e of Texas R ul e of Evi dence 403 t o l i m i t t he i nt r oduct i on of vi ct i m - i m pactand char act erevi dence i n t he fi r s t pl ace , r at hert han t he us e of i ns t r uct i ons t o l i m i t cons i der at i on of evi dence t hathad al r eadybeen a dm i t t ed. 88 Second, near l yi dent i cal claim s w er e r ej ect ed i n S a ld a n o v . S ta te . T her e, t he 89 defe ndanthad r eques t ed s om e t w en ty - fi ve non- s t at ut or ypuni s hm entchar ges , i ncl udi ng
ver s i ons of t he fouri ns t r uct i ons r eques t ed i n t hi s cas e, none of w hi ch w er e gi ven byt he t r i al

cour t
. W e s t at ed,

90 W e bel i eve i t s uffi ci entt o di s pos e of t hes e poi nt s by r ecogni zi ng t hatt he t r i al cour t s ubm i t t ed a c har ge consi s t ent w i t h appl i cabl e s t at e s t at ut es , w hi ch have w i ths t ood num er ous con sti tuti o n al ch all en g es. T h ese stat e statut orypr ovi s i ons m eetfede r al cons t i t ut i onal r equi r ement s bynar r ow i ng t he cl ass of
‘ ‘ deat h- el i gi bl e defe ndant s ’ ’ and t heyar guabl ypr ovi de more t han r equi r ed byM ay s Page 37

Id. at1 0 7 (c i t i n g Cock

re ll v . S tate , 93 3 S.W. 2d 73 , 92 -9 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ) ( fo otn ote 91 omitted)). See T EX . R. E V ID . 1 05 ; se eGu e v ara v . S tate , 97 S.W .3d 579, 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) 92 (d e fe nd ant f

a ile d to pr e se rv e any e rror re g ard ing a dmi ssi on of vic tim

- imp a c t e vid e nc e be c a us e his ob je c tio n at tria l di d n ot c omp or t w ithc omp la int

ra ise d o n a

pp e a l) ; J am es v . S tate , 772 S.W .2d 84, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), v ac ate d o n o the r g ro un ds, 49 3 U .S. 885 (19 89) ( fa ilureto ob je c t to vic tim

- imp a c t e vid e nc e wa ive d r e vie w o n a pp e a l) ; Barletta v. State, 9 9 4 S. W. 2 d 70 8 , 7 1 5 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

1999, pet. re f’d) (d ef

en d ant’s cla im of err oneous admission of victim- impact testimony was not pre serve d for a

ppellate r eview)

. Mosley , 983 S.W .2d at 262. 93 t he fede r al cons t i t ut i on by pr ovi di ng a j ur y a vehi cl e t o ‘ ‘ ful ly ’’ cons i der m i t i gat i ng evi dence “i n ever yconce i vabl e ma n n e ri n w hi ch t he evi dence m i ght b e re le v a n t.” 91 T he sam e i s t rue i n thi s case: T he tr i al j ud ge sub m i t t ed a ch arge con si st ent w i th app l i cable s t at e st at utes
. W e now t ur n t o appel l ant ’ s admi s s i on- bas ed compl ai nt s . A ppel l antfai l ed t o pr es er ve t hi s i s s ue forr evi ew beca us e he di d not obj ectt o t he admi s s i on o f the v ict i m - i m pactor
c h a ra c ter e v id e n c e a t tria l. N e v e rth e les s, h is c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. F irst, ap p e llan t as se rts 92
t hatt he t r i al cour t l eti n fart oo m uch vi ct i m - i m pact evi dence , exce edi ng t he “qui ck gl i m ps e” per m i t t ed by t he E i ght h A m endment

. W e re vi ew a t r i al cour t ’ s admi s s i on of vi ct i m - i m pact and cha r act erevi dence for an abus e of di s cr et i on. T he St at e ca l l ed fourw i t nes s es t o gi ve 93 vi ct i m - i m pactand cha r act ert es t i m ony : D eput yO gbur n’ s w i fe of t hi r t y - s i x y ear s , Pat O gbur n; hi s s on, T onyO gbur n J r . ; D eput yH ar r i s ; and D eput yV al ent i ne. M r s . O gbur n t es t i fi ed t hatherhus band’ s deat h w as “deva s t at i ng. ” She expl ai ned t hat sh e h a s h a d m e d ica l issu e s s in c e h a v in g a stro k e in 1 9 9 6 , a n d h e r h u sb a n d w a s h e r “ so leM ay s Page 38

source . . . of ev ery t hin g .” B ecause o f his death, she had t o m ov e cl oser t o h er s i bli ng s so t hatt heycoul d t ake c ar e of he r . She s ai d herhus band w as a man of fa it h w h o w ant ed not hi ng m or e t han t o “hel p t he publ i c. ” H e “t r ul ybel i eved i n bei ng a pol i ce of fi cer . T hat

w as hi s l i fe. ” M r s . O gbur n’ s t es t i m ony t ook up s l i ght l ym or e t han fourpages of t he r ecor d. T h e n e x t w itn e ss w a s O g b u rn ’s s o n , T o n yJr. H e tes tifie d th a t h e w a s v e ry c lo se to h is d a d , tha t th e y w o u ld talk e v e ry d a y , a n d th a t n o w h e d o e s n o t k n o w w h o h e “ c a n c a ll t o t al k to. ” T on yJr
. ’s m ai n co ncern w as t hat his dad w as no l on ger t here for hi s m om . H e al so expr es s ed s or r ow t hathi s s even chi l dr en l os t t hei r gr andfa t her

. T onyJ r . t es t i fi ed t hathi s dad “l i ked t al ki ng t o y oung peopl e about t he ri ght s and w r ongs of l i fe, and j us t t o t r yt o hel p, y ou know , t he y oungergener at i on. ” H i s t es t i m onyt ook up t hr ee pa ges of t he r ecor d. D eput yH ar r i s t hen t es t i fi ed. H e al s o descr i bed D eput yO gbur n’ s deat h as

“ d e v a s t a t i n g . ” T h e d e c e a s e d wa s h i s “ g o - t o - g u y ” wh e n h i s f a t h e r h a d a t e r mi n a l i l l n e s s . He

s a i d t h e t w o o f

t h e m w o u l d t a l k e v e r y m o r n i n g

– a p a r t o f h i s d a y h e k n e w h e c o u l d e n j o y. H e d esc r i bed D eput yO gbur n as w i s e and w i l l i ng t o s har e t hatw i s dom

. D eput yH arr is’ s t e s t i mon y t o o k u p s l i g h t l y mor e t h a n s i x p a g e s o f t h e r e c o r d , b u t mor e t h a n h a l f of t hat

c o n c e r n e d t h e i mp a c t o f t h e i n j u r yh e h i ms e l f

s u s t a i n e d wh e n a p p e l l a n t s h o t h i m. S im ilarly , D e p u tyV a len tin e d e sc rib e d D e p u ty O g b u rn a s a c o n f id a n t an d ro le m o d e l. S in c e h is d e a th , “T h e re ’s tim e s I d o n ’t w a n t to e v e n c o m e to w o r k a n y m o re .” D e p u ty V a len tin e d e sc rib e d D e p u tyO g b u rn a s s u p p o rtiv e , f r ie n d ly , ca lm in g , an d d e d ica ted to h is

w i fe. D eput yV al ent i ne’ s t es t i m onyt ook up s i x pages of t he r epor t er ’ s r ecor d–s om e ofM ay s Page 39

Haley v . State, 173 S.W .3d 510, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 94 W illiams , 273 S.W .3d at 220. 95 Sa lazar v . S tate , 90 S.W .3d 330, 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 96 w hi ch conc er ned t he i m pactof appe l l ant ’ s conductof t hr eat eni ng hi m w i t h a dee r r i fl e. A ppel l antnot es t hathe di d not know t he O gbur n fami l yor t hatD eput i es H ar r i s and V al ent i ne w er e good fr i ends of D eput yO gbur n’ s. R eg ard le s s , al l of t hi s t es t i m onyw as admi s s i bl e: T hi s w as evi dence conce r ni ng t he i m pactof t he dea t h of t he vi ct i m named i n t he in d ic tm e n t ( T o n yO g b u rn ) o n o th e rs , i

. e. , O gbur n’ s cl os e fa m i l yand fr i ends

. I t w as 94 admi s s i bl e t o r ebutappel l ant ’ s m it igation cas e, r egar dl es s of w het her“t he def endantw as ig n o ra n t o f

th e s p e c if

ic f a c ts re g a rd in g th e v ic tim ’s c h a ra c te r o r r e la tio n s h ip s .” 95 T he vi ct i m - r el at ed evi den ce too k u p onl ya br i ef por t i on of t he r oughl y320- page puni s hm entr ecor d. “Sheervol um e” w as not a fa ct or i n t hi s cas e. T he fourw i t nes s es 96
tes tifi ed succi nctl y and w i t ho ut obj ect i on . T he t ri al j ud ge act ed w i t hin his dis cret io n in

a d m i t t i n g t h e s e s h o r t b i t s o f v i c t i m - i m p a c t a n d v i c t i m - c h a r a c t e r t e s t i m o n y. F inally , ap p ell an t argu es th at t h e t ri al jud g e violated h is co n sti tuti o n al an d stat u tory rig h ts b ya d m itt in g “ v ictim im p a c t” e v id e n c e re latin g to th o se n o t n a m e d in th e in d ictm e n t,

s peci fi cal l yD eput yH ar r i s and D eput yV al ent i ne. A ppel l antnot es t hatD eput i es “H ar r i s and V a len tin e e a c h tes tifie d in g re a t d e tails a b o u t th e ir in ju rie s, th e ir lo ss e s, th e c h a n g e s in th e ir l i ves , t he changes i n t hei r fami l y ’ s l i ves as a re s ul t of t hi s s hoot i ng i nci dent

. ” A ppel l antr el i esM ay s Page 40

939 S.W .2d 627, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 97 Id

. 98 Fo rd v . S tate , 919 S.W. 2d 10 7, 11 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Ga rc ia v . S tate , 126 S.W .3d 99 92 1, 92 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ) ( me dic a l r e c ords of in jure d b y sta

nd e r a dmi ssibleov e r ‘ vic tim imp a c t’ ob

je c tio n; “ Whil e the re c or ds might have be e n irr e le va nt o r i na dmi ssiblefo r o the r r e a so ns , they wer e not irre levant or ina dmissibl e bec ause the y wer e victim imp ac t evidence , as appe llant claims”). Se eRo be rts v . S tate , 2 2 0 S
. W
. 3 d

5 2 1 , 5 3 1 ( T e x. C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ ‘ V i c t i mi mp a c t’ 100 evidenc e is evidenc e of the eff ect of an off ense on people other

than the victim”; statingthat “evide nce of

the ef fec t of a diff

ere nt offenseon thev ic tim ” is a dmi ssible ); compareHaley , 173 S.W .3d at 5 1 8 ( trial c o urt e r

r e d in a dmi tt in gv ic ti m- im

p a c t e v id e n c e r e lati n gto th e e xtr an e o us offe nse of murde r in the punishment phase of coca ine possession trial.). on C a n tu v . S ta te , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hatadmi s s i on of vi ct i m - i m pact and char act erevi dence 97 i s pr oper onl y as t o t he “vi ct i m ” for w hos e deat h t he defe ndant i s bei ng t r i ed, not a s econd vi ct i m ki l l ed i n t he s ame t r ans act i on. 98 D eput i es H ar r i s and V al ent i ne di d pr ovi de cl as s i c vi ct i m - i m pactt es t i m ony( r el at i ng to the im p ac t O g b u rn’s d ea th h ad o n them ), b u t t h e testi m o n yab o u t t h eir ow n i nj ur i es and l os s es w as admi s s i bl e as s ame- t r ans act i on t es t i m ony . N one of t hatt es t i m onyfal l s i nt o a 99 cl as s of evi dence t hi s cour t has t r adi t i onal l y di s favor ed: t hi r d- par t y t es t i m o n y ab o u t t he i m pactof an e xt r aneous offe ns e ( even one occur r i ng dur i ng t he s ame t r ans act i on) i nvol vi ng
a v ictim n o t n a m e d in th e in d ictm e n t. N o th ird p e rso n tes tifie d a b o u t th e im p a c t o f D e p u ty 100 H ar r i s ’ s or D eput yV al ent i ne’ s i nj ur i es upon t hatt hi r d per s on. B eca us e t he t r i al j udge ac t ed

w el l w i t hi n hi s di s cr et i on r egar di ng t he admi s s i on of vi ct i m - i m pactand cha r act erevi dence and di d not er r i n r efus i ng t he r eques t ed cha r ges , w e over r ul e poi nt of er r or t w el ve. C . Jur y A r gumentM ay s Page 41

The prose cutor a

rgued, inte r a lia , 101 And this defe ndant, we know, gets vi olent under these circumstances. The Def ense’ s own experts told you that they had conc erns a

bou t th i s d efendant bec ause of the c on dit ion s th e y

be lie ve he ’s su ff

e ri ngfrom. I f you be lie ve he ’s pa

ra no id an d he be lie ve s that the gua rd s areout to g e t hi m or the police office rs ar e out to g et him or just that people ar e out to gethim, then, c le arl y , th e re ’s a

ri sk of vio le nc e . T he re ’s a

ri sk that he is goin gto a c t on tho se impulses. . . . Se e Cla rk v . S tate , 881 S.W .2d 682, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (re jectingdefe ndant’s 102 claim that evidenc e of c hildhood abuse wa s “‘ma ndatorily mitigating .’ Rather than mandatingthat cer tain evidenc e be c onsidered mitig ating , the s entenc er must simply be allowe d to fully

consider and g ive ef

fec t to the evidence .”). Te x. R. A pp . P. 33 .1 ; se eCock

re ll v . S tate , 933 S.W .2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) 103 (“ a de fe nd ant’ s fa ilure to ob je c t to a jur y argume nt o r a

de fe nd ant’ s f

a ilureto p ur su e to a

n a dv e rs e ru lin ghis ob

je c tio n to a

jur y argume nt f

or fe its his ri ght t o c omp la in a bo ut t he argume nt o n a

pp e a l. Any prior c a se s to thec ontr ary

su c h a s Mon t oya and Romo aree xpre ssl y ov e rr ule d. ” ); se eals o Thre ad gill v . S tate , 146 S.W .3d 654, 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (re aff irming the Cock

re ll rule). I n hi s s econd poi nt of er r or , appel l antcompl ai ns t hatt he pr os ecut or s m ade “ a s er i es
o f e g r e g i o u s l yi mp r o p e r r e ma r k s ” d u r i n g t h e c l o s i n g a r g u me n t s a t t h e p u n i s h me n t s t a g e . He

asser t s t hat t he p rosecut ors “pi t ched a death sent ence” based on app el l ant’ s m ental i l l ness, t hus u s i n g i t a s a “ t wo- e d g e d s wor d ” o f a g g r a v a t i o n i n s t e a d o f mi t i g a t i o n . A ppel l ant

101

a r g u e s t h a t me n t a l i l l n e s s a n d i t s e f f e c t s u p o n o n e ’ s c o n d u c t a r e , a s a ma t t e r o f l a w,

m i t i gat i ng and can never be cons i der ed as r ender i ng a per s on m or e l i kel yt o comm i t act s of

v io len c e . T h a t is n o t th e la w . M e n tal illn e ss , li k e c h ild h o o d a b u se , is n o t m a n d a to rily

m iti g a tin g , alth o u g h it i s e v id e n c e th a t th e ju ry m u s t b e a b le to c o n sid e r a n d g iv e e f f e c t to as it d ee m s ap p rop ri ate. H o w ev er, w e w il l no t r e v ie w the p rop ri etyo f th e p rose cu tor’s 102

ar gum ent s , as appel l antfai l ed t o obj ectt o t hos e ar gum ent s att r i al

. H e has fai l ed t o pr es er ve anyi s s ue forappea l

. W e over r ul e poi nt of er r or t w o. 103M ay s Page 42

App el l an t ar gues that one or more of his written objections to the charg e should have 104 aler ted the trial judg e to this omiss ion, but n o where in his laundry list of objections did appellant object to the omission of the languag e mandated by Tex. Code Crim. P roc. a

rt. 37.071, §2(f) (3) ( the trial judg e shall instruct the jurors that, in answe ringthe mitigation question, they “nee d not agree on wh at pa rt ic ula r e vid e nc e su

pp or ts a n a ff ir mativ e fi nd ingon

th at is su e ” ). An d n on e of his object i o n s we re likely

to put the trial court on notice of his actual c omplaint. His objections included: “TheDef

endant objec ts to the puni shment charg e as a whole beca use it fails to provide a ve hic le fo r f

ulland fa ir c on sid e ratio n o f m iti g atin gcir cum st ance s, ra the r t ha n ju st s ome consideration,” as we ll a s g ener al objections to the constitutionality of article 37.071 and the f ailure to instruct the jury

that a sing le “holdout” juror could ensurea life se ntence
. Al ma nza v . S

tate , 686 S.W .2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). 105 283 S.W .3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 106 D . Puni s hm e nt - Phas e I ns t r uc t i ons t o t he Jury 1. Fai l ur e t o i ncl ude t he s t at ut or y non- unani m i t

y i ns t r uct i on In h is f o u rth p o in t o f

e rro r, ap p e llan t co m p lain s th a t th e trial c o u rt o m itt e d sta tu to rily

r equi r ed l anguage fr om t he mi t i gat i on- i s s ue i ns t r uct i ons . H e i s cor r ect
. T he t r i al j udge er r ed b yf a ili n g to in stru c t th e ju ro rs th a t th e yn e e d n o t ag re e o n w h a t p a rticu lar e v id e n c e su p p o rts

a f in d in g o n th e m iti g a tio n sp e c ial iss u e . H o w e v e r, ap p e llan t f a iled to n o tice o r o b

jec t to th is

om i s s i on, and t hus he may obt ai n a r ever s al of hi s s ent ence onl yi f he s how s t hatt hi s er r or
caus ed “e gr egi ous har m ” w i t h r es pectt o s ent enci ng, t hat i s , t hatt he def endantw as depr i ved

o f a f a ir se n ten c in g trial. 104 W e have r ece nt l y found t hatt he omi s s i on of t he s t at ut or ynon- unani m i t yi ns t r uct i on

w as h arm less erro r un d er A lm an za ’ s “egr egi ous har m ” s t andar d. I n Y o u n g v . S ta te , w e 105 106

s t at ed t hatt hi s i ns t r uct i on i s not cons t i t ut i onal l yr equi r ed forpur pos es of t he Texas s peci alM ay s Page 43

Id . at 879. 107 Id . at 879. 108 See id. at 882 (Cochr an, J., conc urring ) (“[I ]twould be illogic al to speculate that per haps 109 one o r m ore of

those jurors did find a mitig atingcirc umstance but wa s so confused a bout the un anim ity

re qu ir e me nt t

hat hetho ught t

hat un le ss e ve ry

juror a gre e d u po n th e same mit ig atin gfa c t, his vo te did no t count. So h e c ha ng e d h is v ote . Su c h r e a so nin ga ssume s th at juro rs wo uld vio late their oaths. We must, however , ‘pre sume[ ] that jurors, consc ious of the gra vity of their tasks, attend c los e ly thepa rt ic ula r l angua g e of

thetria l c ourt ’s in st ructio ns in c ri min a l c a se s and striveto understand, make sense of, and f ollow the instructions give n them.’”) (footnote omitted). Ap pe lla nt’ s B ri e f at 47
. Ap pe lla

nt s e t ou t th e pr os e c uto r’ s o ff

e nd ingargume nt a s f

oll ow s: 110 Remember the testimony of [four of a

ppellant’s cha

rac ter witnesse s]? That he’s a nice guy . He’ s g ood with kids. He’ s g ood with animals. He’s a ppare ntly the frie nd lie st, mos t tr

us tin gguy

the y ’v e e ve r m e t. An d ye t on

theoth e r h and , th e De fe ns e wa nts you to be lie ve that he ’s so me so rt of pa ra no id p syc ho tic . T he y

c an’ t ha ve it b oth wa y s. Yo u c an’ t ju st t

hr owa ll the defenses ag ainst the wall and see what st icks. There has t o be–ther e has to be a theory here

. I f you’reg oing to f

ind that there ’s a mitiga

ting c ircumstanceto justi fy that the defe nd an t d o es n ’t rec eive the just punishment that he dese rves, then, sur ely , the e vid e nc e sh ou ld a ll s ho w you that. You consider

all the ev i d ence. You don’t just pick out the half of the e vid e nc e that you

wa nt. Appellant points to othe r portions of the closing argument in which the prose cutor listed diffe rent iss u e s. In a d d re ss in g th e iss u e o f h a rm , th e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t e v e ry sin g le ju ro r h a d to

107 agr ee t hatt her e w er e no m i t i gat i ng fac t s or ci r cumst ance s t hatcal l ed fora l i fe s ent ence r at her t han a de at h s ent ence . T hus , i f eve n one j ur or bel i eved t hatt her e w as s om e mi t i gat i ng 108 fac t–anym i t i gat i ng fac t–t hat cal l ed for a l i fe se nt ence , t hatj ur or coul d not j oi n i n a ver di ct i n w hi ch t he j ur yunani m ous l yfound t hatt her e w as no m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance . 109 A ppel l antat t empt s t o di s t i ngui s h Y oung fr om t he pre s ent cas e by cont endi ng t hat t he p ro se c u to r in th is ca se “ re p e a ted ly su g g e ste d th a t th e d e f e n se w a s re q u ire d to su b m it a s in g le

m iti g a tio n th e o ry .” In th e re c o rd e x c e rp ts t h a t a p p e llan t c ites , th e p ro se c u to r s im p ly 110M ay s Page 44

mitigation theorie s that the defe nse had pr esente d and stated, “ All of those things are issues that he’s just throwing up ther e, hopingthat one of those, you’re g oing to grasp a hold of a nd deter mine that’s some sort of mitigating e vidence .” Of c ours e , a s th e de fe ns e imp lie d, the y are no t ne c e ssa ri ly inc on sis te nt. Witn e ss D r. Jeky ll 111 and Mr. Hyde.

Y oung , 283 S.W .3d at 878-79. 112 Se ege ne ra lly

Po we ll v. Sta te , 897 S.W .2d 307, 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (discussing 113 1991 leg islative chang es to art. 37.071)

. po i nted out t he incon si st encies i n the evi den ce present ed b yt he d e f e n se : a p p el l ant w as a cal m , fr i endl y , l i keabl e nei ghbor ver s us he w as a par anoi d ps y chot i c. B ut t he pr os ecut or

n e v e r s u g g e s t e d o r i m p l i e d t h a t t h e j u r y h a d t o u n a n i m o u s l y d e c i d e w h i c h d e f e n s i v e t h e o r y, i f e i t h e r , i t c h o s e t o b e l i e v e . A n y i n d i v i d u a l j u r o r c o u l d b e l i e v e o r d i s b e l i e v e e i t h e r t h e o r y; t he pr os ecut or ’ s t hr us t w as t hat a j ur or coul d not s i m ul t aneous l y bel i eve bot h beca us e t hey

w er e i ncons i s t ent
. I n t hi s cas e, as i n Y oung , t he appe l l anthas fail ed t o s how t hathe 111 112

s u f f e re d “ e g re g io u s h a rm ” f ro m th e o m is s io n o f th e s ta tu to ry n o n -u n a n im ity in s tr u c tio n . W e
o v erru le his fo u rt h p o int of erro r. 2

. Ot h e rp u n i s h me n t
- s t a g e j u r y - i n s t r u c t i o n c l a i ms I n p o i n t s o f

e r r o rf i f t e e n t h r o u g h t we n t y - o n e , a p p e l l a n t r a i s e s v a r i o u s o t h e r c l a i ms
c o n c e rn in g th e p u n is h m e n t- p h a s e ju ry in s tr u c tio n s . I n poi nt of er r or fi ft een, he cl ai m s t hat t he t r i al j udge er r ed i n fai l i ng t o s ubm i t i s s ues
on deli berat i on and provo cat i on as t ho se speci al i ssues pr eviousl yexis t ed in T exas st at utes
. In 1 9 9 1 , w h e n th e L e g isla tu re a d d e d th e m iti g a tio n sp e c ial issu e , it d e lete d th o se d e a lin g w ith del i ber at i on a n d p r o v o c a t i o n beca us e t hos e mat t er s w er e s ubs um ed byt he mi t i gat i on i s s ue. 113M ay s Page 45

T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.071, § 2(e )(1)

. 114 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art . 3 7. 07 1, § 2 (b )( 1) ; see Sonnie r v. Quarterman , 476 F.3d 349, 115 367 (5th Cir. 2007) (“ Though the ‘de liberate ness’ spec ial issue h as been remove d, the impositi on of the de ath pena lty

under the amende d article is not arbitra ry , err atic, wa

nton, or fre akish.”); Joiner v . S tate , 8 25 S.W. 2d

70 1, 70 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ) ( in a ns we ri ngthe“ futur e da

ng e ro us ne ss” specia l issue, the j ury may consider, inte r a lia , “the calc ulated nature of the def endant’ s acts,” “ the fore thought a

nd deliberateness ex hibited by the crime’s execution,” and “whether the def endant wa s actingunder dur ess or the domination of a nother at the time of the off ense” ). T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.071, §2(f )(4)

. 116 Se eCan tu v . S

tate , 939 S.W .2d 627, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (“ Be cau se the 117 consideration and weighing of mitigatingevidenc e is an ope n-ende d, subjective de termination eng ag ed in by

eac h individual j uro r, we conclude that Article 37.071 §2( f)( 4) does not unconstitutionally narr ow the jury ’s discretion to f actor s conce rning only moral blamew orthiness”); se eals o Pry

stash v . S tate , 3 S.W. 3d

52 2, 53 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 992 S.W .2d 469, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). A nyevi dence t hatm i ght s how a l ack of del i bera tene ss o n t he par t of t he def endantor pr ovocat i on byt he murde r vi ct i m can be ful l ycons i der ed as a mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance under t he cur r ents econd s peci al i s s ue. A nd i f t he evi dence does s how car eful del i ber at i on or t he 114 l ack o f prov ocati o n , that evidence m aybe co nsi dered u nd er t he fu t ure- dan gerousn ess i s s ue. 115 I n poi nt of er r or s i xt een, appel l ant ar gues t hat t he t r i al j udge er r ed byi ns t r uct i ng t he j ur y , as r equi r ed by s t at ut e, t hatt he def i ni t i on of “mi t i gat i ng evi dence ” l i m i t s t he conc ept of

m i t i gat i on t o “evi dence t hata j ur or m i ght r eg ar d as r educi ng t he def endant ’ s m or al b lam e w o rth in e ss .” W e h a v e re p e a ted lyre jec ted a p p e llan t’ s a r g u m e n t, an d h e f a ils to 116 p e rsu a d e u s th a t th e se p rio r d e c isio n s w e re in c o rre c t. 117 I n hi s s event eent h poi nt of er r or , appel l ant cont ends t hatt he t r i al j udge er r ed i n fai l i ngM ay s Page 46

Se e, e .g., Lad

d v . S tate , 3 S.W .3d 547, 572-73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (trial cour t need 118 no t fur ther

de fi ne thete rm s in

the“ futur e da

ng e ro us ne ss”iss ue be c a

us e thejur

y is p re sume d to un de rs tand

the m) ; se eals o R usse au v . S tate , 2 91 S.W. 3d

42 6, 43 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09 ); Re nte ria v . S tate , 206 S.W .3d 689, 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Smith v. Texas , 543 U.S. 37, 45 (2004). 119 Johnson v. Tex as , 509 U.S. 350, 362-63 (1993). 120 On appe al, he points to his charg e objec tions 16 and 17, which deal with the trial cour t’s 121 fa ilureto d e fi ne c e rt a in t e rm s; the y do no t de a l w iththesp e c if ic iss ue that hepr e se nts on a pp e a l. to d e f in e v a rio u s te rm s a n d p h ra se s– in c lu d in g “ p ro b a b ili ty ” a n d “ c o n tin u in g th re a t to

s oci et y ”– i n t he fi r s t s peci al i s s ue. A ppel l ant acknow l edges t hatw e have r epea t edl yr ej ect ed t hi s cont ent i on i n pr i or cas es , and w e ar e not per s uaded by hi s ar gum ent s t hat t hos e ca s es 118

w er e i ncor r ect l ydeci ded. In h is ei gh t eenth po i nt of er ror , app el l ant com plai ns t hat t he t ri al j ud ge failed to in stru c t th e ju ro rs th a t th e yc o u ld re tu rn a life se n ten c e e v e n if th e yc o n c lu d e d th a t th e ir hones t ans w er s to the tw o s peci al i s s ues w oul d r equi r e t he t r i al j udge t o s ent ence t he d e f e n d a n t to d e a th . H e a rg u e s th a t th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t “r e q u ir e [ s ] th e trial c o u rt to empow ert he j ur yw i t h a vehi cl e ca pabl e of gi vi ng eff ect ” t o t he evi dence

. A ppel l antci t es 119 no pr ece dent for hi s pr opos i t i on t hatt he j ur ym us t have “ unfet t er ed s ent enci ng di s cr et i on” to im p o se a li fe sen tenc e e v en tho u g h the law an d the f ac ts, as v iew ed b yea ch an d ev ery j ur or , w oul d r equi r e a s ent ence of deat h. T he S upr eme C our t has hel d t hats uch unbr i dl ed di s cr et i on i s not r equi r ed byt he cons t i t ut i on. Fur t her m or e, appel l anthas not s how n any 120
t heor yfor obt ai ni ng a l i fe s ent ence t hati s out s i de t he s cope of t he s peci al issu es. A nd he f a iled to ra ise th is s p e c if

ic c laim in th e trial c o u rt, th u s h is s e n ten c e c o u ld b e re v e rse d o n ly 121M ay s Page 47

Al ma nza , 686 S.W .2d at 171. 122 Se e, e .g., Russe au v . S tate , 1 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d

8 7 1 , 8 8 6 ( T e x. C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ) ; S hannon v. 123 Sta te , 942 S.W .2d 591, 600-01 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996). Appellant’s B rief a

t 128. 124 Se eLun a v . S

tate , 2 6 8 S.W .3d 594, 609-10 (Te x . Crim. App. 2008), cert. de nied, 130 125 S.Ct . 7 2 ( 20 09 ); Sc he an e ttev . S tate , 144 S.W .3d 503, 507-08 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004). i f he es t abl i s hed er r or and t hat er r or caus ed egr egi ous har m . H e has fai l ed t o s how ei t her 122

e r r o r o r e g r e g i o u s h a r m. I n hi s ni net eent h poi nt of er r or , appel l antcl aim s t hatt he “10- 12 R ul e” vi ol at es t he

r i ght s of “l one, m i nor i t y , and di ssent i ng j ur or s ” w ho w oul d eff ect i vel yl os e t hei r vot i ng ri g h ts. H e a rgu es th at j u rors m u st be told o f th eir ri g h t to “v eto d ea th” b yref u sing to return

a n yv e rd ict d u rin g th e se n ten c in g sta g e . W e h a v e p re v io u sly h e ld th a t th e “ 1 0 -1 2 R u le” is

co n s t i t ut i onal and t hatno Supr eme C our t pr ece dentr equi r es t he t r i al j udge t o i nfor m t he ju ro rs o f th e e f f e c t o f a “ h o ld o u t” ju ro r. O n a p p e a l, ap p e llan t co u c h e s h is c o m p lain t in 123
t er m s of t he cons t i t ut i onal r i ght of j ur or s , r at hert han t he r i ght s of t he def endant

. H e neve r br ought t hatar gum entt o t he t r i al j udge’ s at t ent i on; t hus , w e dec l i ne t o addre s s t hatas pect

o f h i s c l a i m. I n hi s t w ent i et h poi nt of er r or , appel l ant cl ai m s t hatt he t r i al j udge’ s i ns t r uct i on t hat t he j ur or s s hal l “cons i der al l evi dence

. . . t hatm i l i t at es for or m i t i gat es agai ns t t he i m pos i t i on of t he dea t h penal t y ” uncons t i t ut i onal l yper m i t s “vague and overbr oad aggr avat or s and ot her i rr at i on al proced ures t o i m po se ca pit al pu nis hm ent. ” W e hav e previ ou sl yrej ect ed these 124

ar gum ent s , and appe l l antfai l s t o per s uade us t hatw e w er e i ncor r ecti n doi ng s o. 125M ay s Page 48

W hit aker v . S tate , 2 86 S.W. 3d

35 5, 37 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09 ); Busb yv . S tate , 253 126 S.W .3d 661, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). I n hi s t w ent y - fi r s t and fi nal poi nt of er r or , appel l antcl ai m s t hatt he t r i al cour t er r ed in re f u sin g to a ss ig n a b u rd e n o f p ro o f to th e S tate in th e m iti g a tio n -iss u e in stru c tio n s. T h is C our t has cons i s t ent l y hel d t hat , under T exas s t at ut e, t he St at e does not bearanybur den of p ro o f in th e m iti g a tio n is s u e a n d th a t th e sta tu te s e tti n g o u t th a t issu e a n d in stru c tio n s is

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

. We d e c l i n e a p p e l l a n t ’ s i n v i t a t i o n t o o v e r r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d l a w. 126 W e over r ul e poi nt s of er r or fi ft een t hr ough t w ent y - one. H avi ng r evi ew ed al l of appe l l ant ’ s cl ai m s , w e fi nd t hat none of t hem re qui r e r ever s al of t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct , and w e t her efor e af fi r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm entand s ent ence .

D el i ver ed: A pr i l 28, 2010 P ub l i sh