Opinion ID: 59634
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Instruction on Lesser Included Offense

Text: Martinez contends that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury charge on the lesser included offense of murder. Because Martinez has failed to demonstrate that he would have been entitled to such an instruction, he cannot make a substantial showing with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court has explained that “when the evidence unquestionably establishes that the defendant is guilty of a serious, violent offense-but leaves some doubt with respect to an element that would justify conviction of a capital offense,” failing to provide a jury with the option of convicting on a lesser included offense would almost inexorably increase the risk of an unjustified conviction. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 637 (1980). This Court has held that a defendant is entitled to the lesser included charge “if the jury could rationally acquit the defendant on the capital crime and convict on the non- 6 We note that the state court record contains the report of Dr. Spears, who conducted competency and sanity evaluations of Martinez. During the clinical interview, Martinez reported to Dr. Spears that he was intoxicated at the time of the crime and did not recall the offense. Martinez also reported that he awoke to discover blood on his shorts and decided to leave. 26 No. 06-70021 capital crime.” Aguilar v. Dretke, 428 F.3d 526, 531 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In his motion for COA, Martinez cursorily notes that there was another male present at the house on the night of the murders. Martinez also points to the following closing argument by defense counsel that the evidence suggests there were two killers. There is some aspect of the case that the State police maybe could have done a better job. Asking about the voided footprints. If you stand over a person and you hit them with a bat with all that – what our medical expert called tremendous force, the blood is going to go up, it’s going to come down, it’s going to fall on your shoes. When you step away, there will be a shoe print on the carpet that’s a void. There’s no blood in that spot where the foot is. The State didn’t bother -- The one footprint that we did have in the case, the bloody footprint on the sheet, didn’t bother to bring to you the size. I want you to take that circumstance and connect it with the circumstances of what Dr. Bux [the state medical examiner] said. The injury that was done to Carolina Prado’s head was done with much more force than was done to Eric Prado’s head, suggesting perhaps that there were two assailants; one administering this kind of force and another one administering this kind of force. Well, those two facts together would have been helpful to the jury as fact finders. How big was that footprint? Or, oh, no, that was just a policeman. When they were checking out the scene he had to step on the blood and so when he stepped on the sheet, that was a policeman’s footprint. We don’t know that, nor do we know that it fits the Defendant. That’s a dangling piece of evidence in the case that might cause some of you to have reasonable doubt. In his closing argument, defense counsel was apparently attempting to create reasonable doubt regarding whether Martinez had also killed Carolina. Counsel referred to the testimony of Dr. Bux, the medical examiner, who testified that although the injuries would be consistent with the proposition that more force was used when hitting Carolina, he was unable to make that 27 No. 06-70021 determination.7 Although the jury could have rationally concluded that more force was used on Carolina, that does not provide evidence such that a rational jury would find that there were two different killers. We have read the trial record and are persuaded that the evidence would not allow a rational jury to find that Martinez killed Eric, but not Carolina. On the night of the murders, Belinda Prado testified that Martinez came home with a friend. After fifteen or twenty minutes, Martinez’s friend left the house, and Belinda heard the gate to the chain link fence around the yard shut. She saw Martinez enter her mother’s bedroom and shut the door. Belinda fell asleep watching television and awoke to the gruesome spectacle of Martinez beating her brother to death with a baseball bat. Martinez threatened to kill her when she protested. When she asked where her mother was, Martinez indicated Carolina was in the shower. Belinda looked for her mother but could not find her. At knifepoint, Martinez tied Belinda to the bed. Martinez gave her a note that read: “I messed up. I’LL Be At the Friends on the EAST side.” Martinez then left the house. She never saw her mother again. Additionally, Martinez’s written confession, wherein he admits the deadly assaults with the bat on both Carolina and Eric, provides that his friend left the house prior to the murders. Again, we are persuaded that the evidence would not permit a rational jury to find that Martinez killed Eric, but not Carolina. Martinez therefore was not entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of murder. Because Martinez has not shown that he was entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction, he fails to make a substantial showing that 7 During cross-examination of Dr. Bux, defense counsel inquired whether he had “an opinion that the force used on the trauma to Carolina Prado was more than the force used on that of Eric Prado?” Dr. Bux responded “I can’t tell, except to note that she seems to have much more massive collapse of her skull.” Defense counsel then asked whether the injuries would be “consistent with the proposition that more force was used on Carolina Prado than Eric Prado . . . .?” Dr. Bux replied that it would be consistent. 28 No. 06-70021 counsel was ineffective for failing to request such an instruction. See Wilson v. Cockrell, 70 F. App’x 219, 228 (5th Cir. July 17, 2003) (explaining that because petitioner “cannot show that he was entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction, he fails to demonstrate that counsel was ineffective for failing to request such an instruction”).