Court Opinion

ID: 9765636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:11:25.470216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:12.494024
License: Public Domain

MALONEY, Judge,
dissenting.
The United States Supreme Court has “defined mitigating circumstances as facts *123about the defendant’s character or background, or the circumstances of the particular offense, that may call for a penalty less than death.” Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 188, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2334, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (citations omitted). “[T]he Eighth Amendment mandates an individualized assessment of the appropriateness of the death penalty.” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 328, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2946, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). “[T]he jury must be able to consider and give effect to any mitigating evidence relevant to a defendant’s background, character, or the circumstances of the crime.” Penry, 109 S.Ct. at 2951.
Because the words “background, character, or circumstances of the crime” are used in the disjunctive, the mitigating evidence does not always or necessarily have to relate to the circumstances of the offense. It may relate only to the defendant’s background or character. In this regard, certainly “there is no ‘nexus’ requirement to be derived from Penry.” Lackey v. State, 816 S.W.2d 392 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Clinton, J., dissenting).
Evidence of alcoholism has mitigating qualities outside the scope of the special issues. At the time of applicant’s trial in 1986, alcoholism was, as it is today, defined and treated as a disease. See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 169-170 (3d ed. 1980) (DSM-III).1
The jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence in the record, as did the prosecutor, that applicant had been drinking at the time of this offense. During the State’s closing argument at punishment, the prosecutor told the jury, “alcohol may remove inhibitions, but it does not remove individual responsibility.” Defense counsel responded, “[njobody said, ‘David is not guilty, because he was drinking,’ and nobody used that excuse. Nobody told you to set him free because he was an alcoholic. He is still accountable.” Both the prosecutor and the defense counsel implied that applicant had been drinking at the time of the offense. Further, as the majority *124notes, Nancy Petkovsek testified that “during the commission of all criminal behavior ... [applicant] was under the influence of an intoxicating beverage.”2 It is unclear as to whether she meant all criminal behavior committed before the instant offense, or all criminal behavior including the instant offense.
The jury could not fully consider and give mitigating effect to the evidence of applicant’s alcoholism within the scope of the special issues. Absent a Penry instruction, a juror who believed that applicant’s evidence of alcoholism diminished his moral culpability would be unable to give a “no” answer if the juror also believed that applicant committed the crime deliberately. Penry, 109 S.Ct. at 2949.
The evidence of applicant’s alcoholism is relevant to the second special issue, but only as an aggravating factor. It suggests a “yes” answer to the question of future dangerousness. Id. Like evidence of Pen-ry's mental retardation, evidence of applicant’s history of alcoholism is both mitigating and aggravating. A rational juror might conclude that evidence of applicant’s alcoholism renders him less morally culpable but, absent an additional jury instruction, the jury could only give effect to its aggravating qualities.
Similarly, the jury could not fully consider applicant’s mitigating evidence in answering the third special issue. Absent a Penry instruction, a juror who believed that applicant’s evidence of alcoholism diminished his moral culpability would be unable to give a “no” answer if the juror also believed that applicant acted unreasonably in response to the provocation of the deceased if any provocation there was.
Consequently, the sentencing procedure employed in applicant’s trial violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
CLINTON and BAIRD, JJ. join this dissent.

. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3d ed. 1980) (DSM-III).
Alcohol Abuse (3.05.0x)
Alcohol Dependence (3.03.9x) "The essential features of Alcohol Dependence are either a pattern of pathological alcohol use or impairment in social or occupational functioning due to alcohol, and either tolerance or withdrawal. Alcohol Dependence has also been called alco-holism_ Familial Pattern. Alcohol Abuse and Dependence are more common among family members than in the general population.” DSM-III at 169.
Diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Dependence (DSM-III p. 170)
A. Either a pattern of pathological alcohol use or impairment in social or occupational functioning due to alcohol use:
Pattern of pathological alcohol use: need for daily use of alcohol for adequate functioning; inability to cut down or stop drinking; repeated efforts to control or reduce excess drinking by “going on the wagon” (periods of temporary abstinence) or restricting drinking to certain times of the day; binges (remaining intoxicated throughout the day for at least two days); occasional consumption of a fifth of spirits (or its equivalent in wine or beer); amnesic periods for events occurring while intoxicated (blackouts); continuation of drinking despite a serious physical disorder that the individual knows is exacerbated by alcohol use; drinking of non-beverage alcohol.
Impairment in social or occupational functioning due to alcohol use: e.g., violence while intoxicated, absence from work, loss of job, legal difficulties (e.g., arrest for intoxicated behavior, traffic accidents while intoxicated), arguments or difficulties with family or friends because of excessive alcohol use.
B. Either tolerance or withdrawal: Tolerance: need for markedly increased amounts of alcohol to achieve the desired effect, or markedly diminished effect with regular use of the same amount.
Withdrawal: development of Alcohol Withdrawal (e.g., morning "shakes” and malaise relieved by drinking) after cessation of or reduction in drinking (p. 133).
The psychoactive Substance Use Disorders (Alcoholism, etc.) deal with behavioral changes affecting the central nervous system. DSM-III at 170.
In addition to alcoholism other disorders dealing with alcohol abuse are: Alcohol Idiosyncratic Intoxication (291.40), Alcohol Withdrawal (291.80), Alcohol Hallucinosis (291.30), Alcohol Amnestic Disorder (291.10), Dementia Associated with Alcoholism (291.20), and the Substance Organic Mental Disorders (292.00, etc.). American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 127 (3d ed. revised 1987) (DSM-III-R).

. In his writ application, applicant documented his history of alcoholism through family affidavits and letters. An affidavit written by his mother presented evidence that applicant began drinking when he was twelve or thirteen. Applicant’s mother became aware of this when she found empty liquor bottles around the house that she knew could have only belonged to applicant because neither she nor applicant’s father drank. She also related that “[w]hen [applicant] was sixteen he was sent home from school because he was drunk.” She also stated that both of applicant’s grandfathers were alcoholics.
An affidavit by Jay Swango, applicant’s friend, states ”[o]n the afternoon and evening of August 31, 1985, [applicant] and I were together at my mother’s house. We were hanging out [and] drinking beer.... By the early evening we had had quite a few beers. We were both very drunk.” Then applicant left and he did not see applicant again that night. The instant offense occurred in the early morning hours of September 1, 1985, only hours after the drinking episode.
The majority concludes, based on recent decisions from this Court, that mitigating evidence outside the trial record will not be considered. At 122. However, such evidence in this case, obvious by the prosecutor’s argument at punishment, "would have been harmful to the defendant if offered at trial without instructing the jury that it could consider and give effect to mitigating evidence by declining to impose the death penalty [and] [a] request for such an instruction would have been futile at the time [of applicant’s trial in 1986].” Ex Parte Herrera, 819 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Maloney, J., dissenting).