Court Opinion

ID: 9858580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:31:28.478854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:54.647191
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
dissenting.
Appellant contends that Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 37.07 § 4(a) violates the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, §§ 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution. In Oakley v. State, 830 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), we found art. 37.07 § 4(a) was not violative of Article I, §§ 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution. However, we did not consider whether art. 37.07 § 4(a) violated the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The majority attempts to address that issue today.
The majority opinion hinges on California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983). However, a thorough reading of Ramos reveals only an Eighth Amendment analysis; there is no mention of the Fifth Amendment and the only reference to the Fourteenth Amendment is found in the penultimate paragraph.1 Ramos, 463 U.S. at 1014,103 S.Ct. at 3460. Therefore, I believe the majority’s reliance on Ramos to address appellant’s contentions is misplaced.
With these comments, I respectfully dissent.

. "... We hold only that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not prohibit such an instruction.” California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1014, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3460, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983).