Court Opinion

ID: 9478983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:05:22.109776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:45.680110
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I can find no fault with the principles elucidated in the Court’s opinion. Indeed, accepting them, I think the record compels a finding that, in the Court’s own words, to maintain the Texas Defense of “insanity” from intoxication “the restrictive reading given by the Texas courts to § 8.04 makes the testimony of a psychiatrist almost essential for a defendant to reap the benefit” of the § 8.04 defense (emphasis added) 874 F.2d 243 at 247 (5th Cir.1989).
Moreover, the Court’s opinion, 874 F.2d at 246-247 makes clear that at the punishment phase of the trial — the only time in which, by the very terms of § 8.04(b), the issue of “insanity” by reason of intoxication is available and relevant — the evidence was overwhelming concerning his heroin usage and addiction. Especially significant is the testimony of Mendoza, a knowledgeable state employee in the Texas Mental Health and Mental Retardation’s Substance Abuse Division. He observed “track marks” with blood stains on Volanty’s shirt sleeves. Based on this and the social history obtained from Volanty, Mendoza expressed the professional opinion that Volanty was a heroin addict.
If this evidence was insufficient to trigger the Texas restrictive requirements it was solely because Volanty did not have the assistance and testimony of a psychiatrist who could link the acknowledged addict status to Volanty’s actions in the alleged crime. It was this essential assistance and testimony which the Texas trial court denied him. The missing link, the critical void, was psychiatric assistance and testimony. In no way could the absence or its decisive significance be made more significant.
In § 8.04 cases the Texas courts have dealt only with alcoholic intoxication. Whether the “intoxication” from heroin addiction is the same as alcoholic intoxication was a matter for expert, psychiatric testimony, not this court in its appellate role and, with deference, ignorance of the mechanics of addict intoxication.
Granted that in Volson, we have required a showing that the defendant’s sani*248ty is in fact an issue m the case, the only thing missing here to establish this requirement is the absence of psychiatric assistance and testimony. To obtain that, Volanty did not have to prove further that at the time of the alleged robbery he was staggering, wall-eyed on suffering from any other attribute of the world of people under the influence of heroin addiction.
As the court says, the psychiatrist was essential to make out intoxication under § 8.04 of the State. Due process under Ake will not tolerate the State’s denial of anything so indispensable.
I therefore must dissent.