Court Opinion

ID: 9766007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:28:38.072953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:18.319722
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant’s court appointed counsel in forceful argument attacks our original opinion in two major respects. He complains of our failure to discuss his contention that the court erred in refusing his request to open and close the argument on the issue of insanity. Though we did fail to discuss this contention in appellant’s case, we did dispose of this question in our opinion in Knoeppel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 382 S.W.2d 493, decided the same day as appellant’s case on original submission. We adopt by reference in the case at bar the reasons there stated for the disposition of this question.
He further focused his attack upon the last paragraph of our original opinion and takes us to task for not applying, as he says, the rule in Moore v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 380 S.W.2d 626. In Moore the trial judge certified that the following action was taken:
“The Court does not certify to the truthfulness of the contents therein but he does certify that they are only contentions of the Defendant.”
On rehearing the majority held that “the Court’s certificate in the bill constituted no action at all”, therefore, no rule of procedure was announced in Moore. But here we do have something in that the court in his certificate referred to the record and, in effect, stated that if error is there presented he was bound thereby. *170Another and far more important difference is that Moore did not bring himself within the rule announced in Willis v. State and English v. State, supra, whereas appellant did. In order to demonstrate that appellant’s cause was in no wise injured by our adherence to the Willis and English rule, we will discuss appellant’s contentions which were not covered by our original opinion. In the first paragraph hereof we have answered his fourth contention.
His fifth contention was that the court erred in overruling his challenge for cause to venirewoman Pancamo when she replied in the affirmative to the question, “If you find him sane and you find him guilty, you would still send him to the electric chair?” Prior to this question she had been informed that appellant was charged with killing his 11 months old child and that the only issue to be submitted for her decision was that of appellant’s sanity. Under the circumstances her answer showed no prejudgment.
His sixth contention is that the court erred in overruling his challenge for cause to venirewoman Craig. After careful interrogation back and forth with slight variation in the responses, Mrs. Craig finally told the court that if she found the defendant to be of unsound mind by a preponderance of the evidence, she could find him not guilty and would be fair with anyone at anytime for any purpose.
His seventh contention was that the court erred in overruling his challenge for cause to venirewoman Bowdoin. She also had been informed that there would be no contest as to appellant’s guilt once the State had made out its case. This being true, the sole issue for her decision was to be answered from a preponderance of the evidence, and we do not find her disqualified because she may have said that she would require an improper burdén of proof on an issue which was not contested.
His eighth contention was that the court erred in failing to grant him additional peremptory challenges after he had been forced to exercise his last challenge on a venireman who should have been removed for cause. This last venireman in question was Mr. Hoza, and his examination reveals no grounds for reversal.
His ninth contention was that one of the jurors had served under a false name and that the deputy sheriff in charge of the venire was informed of his true name before he was questioned on voir dire. The jury summons was addressed to Wallace Murphy at Murphy Wallace’s address. Mr. Wallace appeared for service and notified the bailiff as to the mistake but was addressed as Mr. Murphy during the interrogation. The venireman, having told the bailiff that his names had been transposed, answered counsel’s question without correcting them because he was often addressed as Mr. Murphy as well as Mr. Wallace and that his wife often answered when addressed as Mrs. Murphy. It appears to us that Mr. Wallace was acting in perfect good faith, and we perceive no injury from the above and will therefore not discuss the question of appellant’s diligence.
His eleventh contention was that the court erred in not granting a new trial when it was discovered that juror Laing, in addition to his insurance business, had been an officer in the local Farm Bureau unit which had some three years prior to the instant trial been critical of the voting record of the Honorable Bill Kilgarlin, who was at that time a member of the Texas House of Representatives. On Laing’s voir dire examination, when asked his type of business, he replied that he was an insurance agent. He was not asked any question concerning his activities in connection with the Farm Bureau. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Attorney Kil-garlin testified at length about a breakfast *171given by the local Farm Bureau at which his voting record in the House had been criticized and stated that after the trial he had talked to Laing over the telephone and Laing had told him that he remembered Attorney Kilgarlin’s being at the breakfast. Laing, however, during his examination after the trial remembered the breakfast, but did not recall that Kilgarlin’s record was discussed. Counsel was unable to establish any such prejudice against him personally as might have rendered Laing unacceptable as a juror.
His twelfth contention was that Article 616, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which provides for a challenge for cause in a capital case if the venireman has conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty, is unconstitutional. We commend counsel for his studious approach to this problem, but we are forced to agree with the State that unless the Legislature in its wisdom abolishes the death penalty as possible punishment for crime, Section 11 of Article 616, supra, is essential in order that a death penalty verdict may be predictable.
The expert witnesses that he sought to call would be properly heard by a Legislative committee, but the court did not err in refusing to hear the witnesses because according to the duty of his office he was bound to follow the above Article. It would have been idle for him to have conducted an academic forum.
His fourteenth contention was that the court erred in not permitting him, by his interpretation of Article 2, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., to interrogate the venire so as to inform them that if they inflicted the death penalty they would not be reforming the offender and therefore not following the law of Texas. Such an interpretation of the object of punishment in the field of criminal law would be at variance with the statutes authorizing the imposition of the death penalty.
His fifteenth contention was that the court erred in refusing to permit him to introduce evidence before the jury by expert witness who would express the opinion that the awarding of the death penalty does not deter or suppress crime. What we have said in connection with his twelfth contention is deemed a sufficient answer to this contention.
His last contention not heretofore discussed is that the court erred in denying his motion made prior to trial for a production among other things of “all written statements made by witnesses in connection with this case.” The record reflects that a psychiatric report was made available to counsel. In all other respects the trial judge carefully followed the rules announced in Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr. App., 353 S.W.2d 467, and appellant has shown no injury.
Remaining convinced that this cause was properly decided originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.