Opinion ID: 145740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Direct Appeal

Text: On direct appeal from the trial court, Smith renewed his argument that the special issues were unconstitutional: [I]n [Penry I], the Supreme Court held that there was an Eighth Ame[n]dment violation where there was mitigating evidence not relevant to the special verdict questions, or that had relevance to the defendant's moral culpability beyond the scope of the special verdict questions, and the jury instructions would have provided the jury with no vehicle for expressing its reasoned moral response to that evidence. ..... By its extremely narrow interpretation of the requirements of Penry, this Court has unconstitutionally narrowed the sentencer's discretion to consider relevant mitigating evidence .... The special issues ... do not in reality provide a vehicle for individualized consideration of the appropriateness of assessment of the death penalty and [the article establishing them] is unconstitutional as applied. 1 App. 133-134. Both the Court of Criminal Appeals, in its most recent opinion, and the State, in its brief on direct appeal, recognized Smith's pretrial motions preserved this argument. 185 S.W.3d, at 462, and n. 9 (holding Smith's direct-appeal argument that the jury was unable to give effect to his mitigating evidence in answering the special issues was based upon his pretrial motion); Brief for Texas in No. 71,333 (Tex. Crim.App.), p. 62, Record 674 ([Smith] reiterates his [pretrial] claim that the statute is unconstitutional as applied since it fails to provide an effective vehicle for the jury to apply mitigating evidence). In its opinion affirming the sentence on direct review the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the instruction complied with Penry and provided a sufficient vehicle for the jury to consider any mitigating evidence [Smith] offered. Smith v. State, No. 71,333 (Tex.Crim.App., June 22, 1994), p. 11, 1 App. 147.