Court Opinion

ID: 9779500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:03:55.278395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:27.208697
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the Court’s disposition of appellant’s point of error number three insofar as it holds the trial court did not err to grant the State’s challenge for cause against venireman William Bristol. I am the first to acknowledge that a venireman who indicates he will always, invariably answer the special issue set out in current Article 37.071, § 2(e), VAC.C.P., in such a way as to prevent imposition of the death penalty is subject to a challenge for cause on the ground that he harbors a bias against a phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely, under Article 35.16(b)(3), VAC.C.P. See Riley v. State, 889 S.W.2d 290, 301, n. 4 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). Had Bristol given any indication dining his voir dire that he would be such a juror, I would agree with the Court that the record was “sufficient to support a rational conclusion by the trial judge that he would automatically find mitigating circumstances to justify avoiding assessment of a death sentence, regardless of the evidence adduced at trial.” Op. at 842. But he did not. He did not come close. I therefore dissent.
I also write separately to add to the Court’s analysis of that part of appellant’s fifth point of error that claims, essentially, that the jury’s negative answer to the Article 37.071, § 2(e) issue was against the greater weight and preponderance of the evidence, and that we should therefore reform his sentence to life imprisonment. Because appellant provides no briefing whatsoever for this sub-contention, the Court would do better not to address it at all. See Tex.RApp.Pro., Rule 74(f). Because the Court does anyway, I write further to address that as well.

I.

The offense in this cause was committed after the 1991 amendment to Article 37.071, V.A.C.C.P. See Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 838, § 1, p. 2899, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Under Article 37.071, § 2(e), as it currently reads, the jury at the punishment phase of a capital murder trial is instructed to answer whether mitigating evidence is sufficient to warrant imposing a life sentence rather than the death penalty. We recognized in Riley that:
“it is arguable that categorical opposition to the death penalty can support a trial court’s conclusion that a venireman is ‘substantially impaired’ under Wainwright v. Witt, [469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) ], at least if that opposition would cause the venireman invariably to answer the special issue required to be submitted by subsection [2](e) in such a way as to prevent imposition of the death penalty. Cf. Staley v. State, 887 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.Cr.App.1994) (venireman who maintained his categorical opposition to death penalty would cause him invariably to answer jury nullification instruction in satisfaction of Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 *846(1989), in such a way as to prohibit imposition of death sentence was properly subject to State’s challenge for cause.)”
Id., at 301, n. 4. We made it clear in Staley that the trial court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by granting a State’s challenge for cause against a venireman who indicated he would always answer the Eighth Amendment special issue in such a way as to block imposition of the death penalty. 887 S.W.2d at 894. Even in this context, however, mere opposition to the death penalty, even categorical opposition, does not alone suffice to justify granting the State’s challenge for cause. The State must establish further that the venireman’s opposition to capital punishment would cause him invariably to answer the Eighth Amendment issue (or, as in this case, the Article 37.071, § 2(e) special issue) in such a way as to insure that the sentence of death would not be imposed. See Riley, supra, at 301, n. 4.
All of Bristol’s testimony that supposedly supports the conclusion he would automatically answer the § 2(e) special issue so as to avoid the death penalty is set out in the majority opinion. It is true enough that Bristol had some nebulous “reservations” about the death penalty; that he could not “kill another human being[;]” that he “[did] not feel that [he] could give it[.]” None of these answers remotely establishes that he would automatically answer the § 2(e) special issue affirmatively. The prosecutor did not even explain the operation of the special issues to him, much less inquire whether his apparent inability personally to impose a death penalty would cause him consciously to distort his response to one of them.
A venireman must be told what the law requires of him before it can be said that he cannot follow it. Cuevas v. State, 742 S.W.2d 331, 343, n. 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). That the venireman harbors some attitude antithetical to the law is of no moment so long as he can lay that attitude aside and abide by the requirements of the law. The proponent of a challenge for cause has the burden of establishing his challenge is proper. Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, 753 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (plurality opinion). The proponent does not meet that burden until he has shown that the venireman understood the requirement of the law and could not overcome his prejudice well enough to follow it. We have applied this eminently sensible principle often enough when it was a capital defendant making the challenge for cause against a venireman who held in low regard some aspect of the law upon which the defendant was entitled to rely. E.g., Cuevas v. State, supra; Trevino v. State, 815 S.W.2d 592, 614, (Tex.Cr.App.1991); Teague v. State, 864 S.W.2d 505, 513 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). Cf. Martinez v. State, 899 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.Cr. App., Dec. 14, 1994) (defendant’s challenge for cause appropriately denied where, even though venireman opined in response to inartful questioning that he would not be able to follow court’s instruction not to apply law of parties at punishment phase of trial, counsel’s questions were “confusing and were not followed up by more pinpoint questioning” regarding his ability to follow the law). It is beyond my comprehension why the State is not required to explain the obligations of the law with equal clarity before this Court is willing to say the State has met its burden to show a venireman cannot follow it. In the ease of venireman Bristol, the State did not explain the obligations of the law at all. Thus, it has failed to meet its burden to show that Bristol was challengeable for cause because biased against a phase of the law upon which it was entitled to rely. See Article 35.16(b)(3), supra.
Inexplicably, the majority also relies upon a part of the colloquy between Bristol and counsel for appellant. Op. at 842. In context of the whole colloquy it is clear that appellant was not attempting to ascertain whether Bristol would always answer the special issue in such a way as to avoid the death penalty. Rather, he was inquiring whether there might be any set of mitigating circumstances sufficient to answer the § 2(e) special issue “yes,” so that Bristol could ever vote against imposition of the death penalty. This does not address any aspect of the law *847upon which the State was entitled to rely. Not even the State’s so-called interest in insuring that a capital defendant receives a fair and impartial trial is called into play here, since Bristol apparently acknowledged that there were circumstances in which he could envision answering the special issue affirmatively. See Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 691 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Phillips v. State, 701 S.W.2d 875, 884-85 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985). This portion of Bristol’s voir dire does not support the grant of the challenge for cause against him at all.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s challenge for cause against Bristol. We should at least vacate the death sentence and remand the cause for a new punishment hearing, under Article 44.29(c), V.A.C.C.P., if not for a whole new trial. See Ransom v. State, [1994 WL 259057] (Tex.Cr.App., No. 71,633, delivered June 15, 1994) (pending State’s motion for rehearing) (Slip op. at 5, n. 5). The Court errs not to.

II.

Appellant nakedly contends that the mitigating evidence was so compelling that we should reform his sentence to life imprisonment. Whether this is a “sufficiency” review appellant thus requests, as the majority characterizes it, Op. at 844, or a claim that the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, depends upon who carries the burden of proof under Article 37.071, § 2(e), supra. We have yet to resolve this question.
We came closest in Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.Cr.App.1994), where we commented on the question in passing. Barnes had argued that the trial court erred not to instruct the jury at the punishment phase of his capital murder trial that the State had a burden to negate evidence proffered in mitigation of the death penalty. This Court held that the trial court had not erred because neither the Eighth Amendment, nor any state provision implementing it, had assigned such a burden to the State. In a footnote we remarked:
“Currently, Article 37.071 mandates that a jury that finds beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Subsection (e), that the special issues under Subsection (b) should be answered affirmatively must go on pursuant to Subsection (e) to decide whether mitigating circumstances nevertheless warrant a life sentence. However, neither Subsection (c) nor Subsection (e) itself expressly assigns a particular burden of proof on the issue of mitigation. It might be argued, although we certainly have no occasion here to hold, that Subsection (c) implicitly assigns the burden to the beneficiary of a finding of ‘sufficient mitigating ... circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life ... be imposed.’ Cf. Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, at 298 (Tex. Cr.App.1990) (State has burden of proof to establish harmless error under Tex. R.App.P. 81(b)(2), as beneficiary of the error). That, of course, would be the defendant.”
Id., at 330, n. 17.
I agree with the Barnes footnote that Article 37.071, § 2(e) assigns at least a burden of production to the defendant. Before a capital jury can even reach the § 2(e) issue, it must have affirmatively found the existence of aggravating facts under Article 37.071, § 2(b), for which the State expressly shoulders the burden of proof, under § 2(c). Once these facts have been established to the jury’s satisfaction to a level of confidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury proceeds to the § 2(e) special issue, viz: “whether ... there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed.” (Emphasis added.) If there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances, the default position is that a sentence of death will be imposed. This means that it is the capital defendant who stands to benefit from the presentation of mitigating evidence.
Because appellant is, thus, the beneficiary of mitigating evidence, the burden of production falls to him. Arnold v. State, supra. *848Therefore, if the jury verdict is against him, appellant can only argue on appeal that the verdict was against the greater weight and preponderance of the evidence. Cf. Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146, 155 (Tex.Cr.App.1990) (defendant has burden to prove affirmative defense of insanity, and appellate review of a verdict against him inquires whether verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence); Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, at 875 (Tex.Cr.App.1994) (same). Strictly speaking, the majority errs to characterize appellant’s contention as a claim that the evidence is not “sufficient.”
In any event the majority is correct that we cannot review the claim on appeal, however we characterize it. Subsection 2(f)(4) of Article 37.071 defines as mitigating anything “that a juror might regard as reducing the defendant’s moral blameworthiness.” (Emphasis added.) Thus the statute assigns exclusively to the jury the task of evaluating what evidence proffered in mitigation of the death penalty is sufficient and what is not. We cannot say that evidence was mitigating as a matter of law any more than we ean say, in a non-capital case, that the evidence is insufficient to support a twenty year sentence, or that the greater weight and preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proper sentence would have been ten years, probated. There is simply no way for an appellate court to review the jury’s normative judgment “that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment.” Op. at 844. Though it should not have reached this sub-contention in appellant’s fifth point of error, the majority correctly disposes of it on the merits.
Because the Court fails to hold that the trial court erred to excuse venireman Bristol for cause, I respectfully dissent.
OVERSTREET, J., joins.