Court Opinion

ID: 9771179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:35:58.817999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:26.558926
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion that the fourteenth point of error in this cause is governed by our recent pronouncement in Garrett v. State, 851 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), motion for reh’g denied. This *70cause is factually indistinguishable from Garrett, and thus the legal result the same. I therefore join the majority opinion. I write separately to articulate my reasoning on this point.
In Garrett, the State challenged for cause a prospective juror who stated he could not answer affirmatively the second punishment issue based on the facts of the capital offense alone. The trial judge granted the State’s challenge, which ruling the defendant objected to at trial and challenged on appeal. On direct appeal, the State relied upon case law from this Court1 addressing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s affirmative answer to the second punishment issue and held that the facts of the offense, if severe enough, will support a jury’s affirmative answer on this issue. The Court noted that this is an appellate standard of review, the minimum legal threshold of sufficient evidence to answer the second punishment issue, and it was not error for a prospective juror to require more evidence than that in his understanding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at p. 859. Thus, the Court held the trial judge reversibly erred in granting the State’s challenge for cause. After reconsidering the Garrett opinion in the cause at bar, I am convinced its reasoning is sound.
Our interpretation of Texas’ sentencing statute recognizes that more evidence than the mere facts of the offense may be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. The “facts of the offense” is the minimum amount of evidence the State must present to legally obtain an affirmative answer to the second special issue. A juror does not evidence a bias against the law upon which the State is entitled to rely merely because he would require more than the minimum amount of evidence.2 As the juror in this cause and in Garrett indicated, they could consider the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for one convicted of capital murder but they needed more evidence than just the facts of the case to determine that the convicted defendant deserved the death penalty. These prospective jurors did not reveal an inability to follow the law and their oath. Neither did their viewpoint of when the death penalty would be appropriate punishment substantially impair their ability to serve as jurors in a capital case. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). The juror who requires more evidence than the facts of the offense in order to answer special issue # 2 affirmatively does not show an inability to consider the entire range of punishment (life or death) in the capital case;' this type juror just needs more evidence to make a reasoned decision regarding the ultimate penalty. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976).
The State is not entitled to a death sentence upon the defendant’s conviction for capital murder. Nor is the State entitled to twelve jurors who would only require the legal, minimum quantum of evidence for assessment of the death penalty.3 The State is only entitled to jurors who can consider the entire range of punishment in an appropriate *71ease, and the jurors’ concept of an appropriate case may encompass evidence that the State is permitted to introduce at trial, such as prior criminal record, character evidence, etc. Neither the juror in this case nor in Garrett expressed during his voir dire examination an inability to assess the death penalty per se; each merely expressed his opinion that a person who commits capital murder does not, without more, merit a finding that he will be a continuing threat to society as contemplated by special issue #2. I find no bias against the law on the part of these prospective jurors; indeed, I believe that they would be thoughtful, conscientious jurors.
With these comments, I join the majority opinion.
MEYERS, J., joins this opinion.

. See Garrett, at p. 859, n. 3, 4.

. At the punishment phase of a capital murder trial, the State (and the defendant) may present evidence "as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence!.]” Art. 37.071, § 2, V.A.C.C.P. This evidence may include the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation, his character, psychiatric testimony, etc. The State may, however, choose not to introduce any evidence at punishment but merely re-offer its evidence from guilt/innocence.
In my view, a venireperson who would require evidence that falls outside the realm of evidence that the State generally is allowed to bring (i.e. that the defendant testify or that matters privileged under Article V of the Rules of Criminal Evidence be introduced) probably does evidence a bias against the law upon which the State is entitled to rely. The same is true where a venire-person requires evidence that constitutes another crime, e.g., where the venireperson requires in a Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2) capital murder case that the State show a serial killing as contemplated by § 19.03(a)(6).

.The State may, however, peremptorily strike those prospective jurors who could give the death penalty (i.e. answer the punishment issues affirmatively) but only on a greater quantum of proof.