Court Opinion

ID: 9858370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:21:07.758572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:02.838836
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
In overruling the point of error underlying the ground for review being addressed by this Court, the Dallas Court of Appeals opined:
“Factors that can be introduced in mitigation of punishment are those that have a relationship to the circumstances of the offense or to the defendant before or at the time of the offense. Factors which arise after the offense and independently of the defendant are properly excluded. Stiehl v. State, 585 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1114 [101 S.Ct. 926, 66 L.Ed.2d 843] (1981).”
Brown v. State, 674 S.W.2d 443, at 447 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984). Accordingly, the Dallas Court held that “evidence of the supervision and revocation procedures of probation was independent of appellant and his conduct and was therefore properly excluded.” Ibid.1
In his petition for review appellant asserted that the Dallas Court has decided an important question of state law which has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, Tex.Cr.R.App.Pro. Rule 302(c)(2); then more or less alternatively, he urges that on an important question of state law the decision below is in conflict with applicable decisions of this Court. Id., Rule 302(c)(3). See now Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 200(c)(2) and (3), respectively.
In its opinion for the Court, the majority notices the decision of the court of appeals by quoting the stated reason the Dallas Court gave for overruling his point of error to affirm the judgment of the trial court. Slip Opinion, at 1. However, it makes no effort to review the reason assigned by the Dallas Court for its decision, and to that I first turn.
In Stiehl v. State, supra, the Court acknowledged that under Allaben v. State, 418 S.W.2d 517, at 518 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), “[ejvidence legally admissible to mitigate punishment ... is also admissible.” Id., at 718. But it stated that factors in mitigation “which arise after the offense and independently of the defendant” should not be admitted. Ibid.
Recently in Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 *456(1986), a capital case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that exclusion of testimony of jailers and others that during his pretrial incarceration defendant had behaved and adjusted well violated his right to present all relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment. Since evidence to mitigate punishment is admissible in a noncapi-tal case, Allaben, supra, we should hold that postoffense factors in mitigation of punishment implicating an accused are admissible.
It follows that to the extent the opinion below may be read to preclude such evidence of mitigating factors involving an accused “arising after the offense” it should be disapproved.2
Instead of confronting the holding of the Dallas Court of Appeals, quoted ante, at page 453, and although not cited or discussed by either party, the majority announces that the Court “has previously settled” the issue in Logan v. State, 455 S.W.2d 267, 269-270 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).3
The problem with relying alone on Logan is that it was decided in 1970 when § 3a of the former adult probation and parole law provided in its last sentence that upon recommendation of probation by a jury “the court may impose only those conditions which are set forth in Section 6 hereof.” See former article 42.12, § 3a, V.A.C.C.P. The opinion stresses the very point that the court “must impose the statutory conditions.” Logan, supra, at 270. That restriction upon the trial court was lifted by Acts 1981, Acts 67th Leg., Ch. 639, p. 2466, § 2, effective September 1, 1981, whereby the last sentence was deleted, leaving just one mandatory provision, viz: “In all eligible cases, probation shall be granted by the court, if the jury recommends it in their verdict, for the period recommended by the jury.” Thus, much, if not all, of the ratio decidendi in Logan is no longer viable.
Nevertheless, in the instant cause the majority suggests that appellant had “the benefit” of a jury instruction giving applicable law and “possible conditions of probation.” Maj. Opinion, at 454. It is not even nearly the same, and whatever merit there may be in its characterization of a Logan instruction as a “benefit,” in that the jury is told what the court must do, the fact remains that the one given here hardly bestows anything of value. It instructs the jury that if probation is recommended, “The Court may impose any of the following terms and conditions:” followed with an enumeration of twelve of them. Where is a “benefit” in such an abstract instruction?
It is dangerous to say this instruction “contained all the information necessary for the jury to make its decision[.]” Slip Opinion, at 4. At once, it contains everything and nothing. This kind of instruction does not give jurors even a slightest hint about how the enumerated conditions may guide their deliberations on whether to recommend probation, particularly when the jury is given to understand that the court alone will determine terms and conditions actually imposed on defendant.
Finally, at page 455 and without identifying it, the majority raises the specter of Schulz v. State, 446 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), but fails to notice that the thrust of proffered testimony by Dr. Hol-brook, a psychiatrist, was that in his opinion “it would be better for [accused] to be placed on probation,” id., at 874. That testimony, the Court then believed, “would be permitting an invasion of the province of the jury” — an archaic notion under our present rules of evidence, Tex.Cr.R.Evid. Rule 704. In any event, the probation officer here did not pretend to be an expert and the testimony appellant sought to adduce did not include her opinion as to *457whether appellant should be placed on probation or be confined in TDC. She would have talked to the jury only about local “supervision and revocation procedures of probation,” Brown v. State, supra, at 447. Hardly the first shot in “an escalating ‘battle of the experts.’ ” Maj. Opinion, at 455.
In sum, the majority opinion deliberately bypasses the reasons we granted review and takes an entirely different approach to the problem, but ultimately fails to justify conclusions it does reach. In my view, the majority is too skittish of what is basically factual testimony proffered through an impartial witness to inform the discretion of a jury in determining whether to recommend probation.4
Today with a hightened public awareness about such matters, surely jurors take to their deliberations and determination a common knowledge and appreciation that an ultimate societal objective of probation is rehabilitation of the probationer. Sanders v. State, 580 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Yet, the sole function of a jury is to recommend, leaving first to good judgment of the trial judge what conditions will be imposed, and then to trained and experienced supervising adult probation officers enforcement of those behavioral restraints and requirements to the end that rehabilitation is achieved.
From evidence leading to the jury’s own finding of guilt jurors well know that defendant engaged in conduct violative of the law, and they learn as much about applicant as a person from that criminal conduct and in light of additional evidence adduced by parties on punishment and application for probation they are permitted by statutory law and rules of evidence to present. The jury comes to understand that applicant has never before been convicted of a felony in this or any other state and how the community regards his character. It may hear general testimony concerning applicant from a variety of persons about background, family, employment and the like. This latter evidence does not bear on any particular “issue,” for there is none the jury must resolve; the testimony is available for such consideration as the jury may give in assessing punishment and determining probation.
Evidence of supervision and revocation procedures of probation provides a context within which such matters may be placed for a better understanding of the consequences of a recommendation that probation be granted. Given by an impartial professional such testimony is neutral and informative in nature, and poses no “danger that it would prejudice or confuse the trier of fact,” since, in the matter of recommending probation there is no fact to be tried.
Its unfettered discretion thus informed, the jury makes its determination as to whether to recommend probation.
Therefore, I would find that the court of appeals erred in its application of the law, reverse its judgment and remand the cause to the trial court. Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.
MILLER, J., joins.

. All emphasis is mine throughout unless otherwise noted.

. Beyond that, given the facts on which decided, Stiehl is inapposite. Deficiencies in living conditions and security in a jail where an accused in being held for trial ordinarily have no relation to the offense alleged and do not bear on any recognized factor in mitigation of punishment. Stiehl, supra, at 718. They have nothing to do with a determination by jury or judge of an application for probation.

. To rely solely on the rationale of Logan to affirm the judgment of the Dallas Court means that this Court does not review propriety of its reliance on Stiehl. The question presented by appellant goes unanswered in the majority opinion.

.In its brief the State summarizes the proposed testimony for us, viz:
1. After someone is placed on probation, the probation officer conducts an initial interview to collect background information on the individual.
2. The probation officer then makes recommendations to the court.
3. There are alcohol and drug programs available which could become a part of the probation programs if the court so allows.
4. When, and if, the terms of probation are violated the court is informed of the violation, but it is the prosecutor’s duty to file the motion to revoke.
5. The defendant cannot make bond after being arrested for a probation violation.
6. The defendant has no right to a jury trial in a revocation hearing.
7. The probationer can be made to serve out his entire sentence even though the probationer may have completed most of the probation.
8. The probationer is generally required to report to the probation officer once a month.
9. The probationer could be placed on "intensive probation” where the probationer will be required to meet with the probation officer frequently.
10. The probationer could pay a fee and restitution as part of the terms of probation.