Court Opinion

ID: 9666114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:05:16.747141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:23.900850
License: Public Domain

MALONEY, Judge,
dissenting.
The evidence listed in the application for writ of habeas corpus is evidence that 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. A request for such an instruction would have been futile at the time this case was tried. See Stewart v. State, 686 S.W.2d 118 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).
I do not believe that counsel was incompetent because he did not proffer the evidence listed in the application at the time of trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The machinery in place at the time of this trial militated that competent counsel not proffer “two edged sword” Penny type evidence since it conceivably might have been utilized by the State; but without directions to the jury in accordance with the instruction mentioned above. Penny v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989).
The Texas scheme of submitting the statutory issues to the jury on whether the defendant should receive death under Article 37.071, Y.A.C.C.P., has never provided and still does not provide a mechanism for the jury to consider Penny type evidence in mitigation of the death penalty (evidence that goes beyond the scope of the statutory issues); an issue that would allow the jury to make an individualized assessment of the defendant and a “reasoned moral response” about the appropriateness of the death penalty where such evidence exists.
Until today, neither this Court nor the legislature has required that the trial courts of this State submit such an issue, despite the warnings, albeit sometimes clouded, suggested by Woodson v. North *533Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1975); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 99 S.Ct. 2150, 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Penry, supra. Cf., Adams v. State, 577 S.W.2d 717 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Quinones v. State, 592 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Lackey v. State, 638 S.W.2d 439, (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Stewart v. State, supra. See also Gribble v. State, 808 S.W.2d 65, (Tex.Cr.App.1990).
We have decided today that in the trials occurring before Penry, there is no procedural default in having failed to request, at the time of trial, a jury instruction on the Penry mitigation issue. Black v. State, 816 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). See also Selvage v. Collins, 816 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Opinion on Certified Question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit). In Lackey v. State, 819 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) also decided today, although without unanimity and completeness, we attempt to define Penry type evidence. In Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.Cr.App. No. 70,887), we held today that, because it implies a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the failure to properly instruct the jury on Penry type evidence may be cognizable by way of post conviction writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07, Y.A.C.C.P., despite applicant’s failure to complain on direct appeal. However, it was mentioned, “absent a contemporaneous offer of proof or bill of exception detailing what mitigating evidence was tactically withheld by the appellant during trial, we will not be heard to consider the same now.” See Goodman at p. 386, n. 6.
Where this court and the legislature have heretofore failed to give direction, we cannot fault the bar for failing to perfect error or proffer evidence; and this is particularly true since neither we nor the Supreme Court of the United States have yet to fully define the extent, boundaries and limitations of Penry type evidence.
I would remand this case for an eviden-tiary hearing so that the applicant might be allowed to develop his Penry type evidence and so that it might be determined if in fact the evidence is that which should have been submitted to the jury with a proper instruction in accordance with the mandates of Penry v. Lynaugh, supra. Because the majority does not do so, I respectfully dissent.