Opinion ID: 441667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Possibility of Parole

Text: 20 During closing argument of the punishment phase, counsel for De La Rosa told the jury that by your verdict [i.e., guilty of capital murder], you have found that [De La Rosa] is to spend the rest of his life in the Texas Department of Corrections, a life sentence. Later, De La Rosa's attorney invoked the horror of life in the Texas Department of Corrections to show the adequacy of a life sentence. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is not a case in which society is going to be exposed to the presence of Jesse De La Rosa .... He is condemned to spend the minimum, the rest of his life in the Texas Department of Corrections .... [P]unish Jesse De La Rosa by making him forfeit his freedom for the rest of his life but do not, I beg you, do not make him forfeit his life. 21 Because defense counsel opened the door, the prosecutor addressed the possibility of parole: 22 It's not proper for the State to talk about the Board of Pardons and Parole and what they do, but when she misleads the jury or in law they say opens the door. I just don't want you to be misled in thinking that the life sentence necessarily means that the person spends the rest of his life in prison because that is strictly up to the Board of Pardons and Parole and you can't talk about what they do or how they decide it. But I didn't want you to be misled about that and I want you to remember that when you think about the proper disposition in this case. 23 At the post-trial hearing juror Helen Davis testified that the only recollection she had of parole being mentioned in the jury room was after a juror indicated that a life sentence meant that De La Rosa would automatically be in prison for life. She said that that was not necessarily true, but that it was up to the Board of Pardons and Parole. Juror Ethel Hester also stated that whether a life sentence meant life forever in prison was up to the Parole Board and that a life-sentenced prisoner could get out on parole. Although she was not sure of the time a prisoner must serve before being considered for parole, she indicated that it could be after five or seven years. Both jurors recalled no other discussion of parole. 24 Mike Hrncir, who served as jury foreman, testified that he instructed them that as far as we know and as far as we're concerned, that the sentence of life meant life and we can't consider anything else because we were not the Board of Pardons and Parole. He emphasized that parole had no bearing on the issue and that the jury could not do anything about it. After another isolated comment, Hrncir again admonished the jury. After I told them life meant life, it was dropped, the issue was not considered any more or discussed. 25 Under Texas law, not every mention of parole during jury deliberations calls for reversal. McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156, 162 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). Only jury misconduct that deprives the defendant of a fair and impartial trial warrants granting of a new trial. De La Rosa failed to make that showing. Even if the discussion of parole had been far more intense, we would have difficulty in deciding the likely advantage or disadvantage to the defendant. Clearly in the present case there was no objectionable effect against constitutional assurances.