Court Opinion

ID: 9760357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:49:55.907281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.899306
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance but respectfully disagree with the majority’s holding under point of error number one. I do not agree that the amendment to article 37.07, section (3)(a) allows the introduction of extraneous, unadjudicated offenses at the punishment stage. Prior to the amendment, it is clear that unadjudicated bad acts were not admissible in the punishment stage of non-capital prosecutions. Ramey v. State, 575 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Davis v. State, 478 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) reaffirmed the rule and clarified it to include those cases where a defendant had applied for probation. The majority recognizes the pri- or rule but concludes the amendment overruled Murphy. Furthermore, the majority relies upon article 37.071, the capital murder procedures, to reach their conclusion.
Article 37.071 is a completely different punishment scheme from article 37.07. The capital murder jury must answer questions, they do not determine any number of years. One of those questions is whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Thus, the focus is different. Also, there is a marked difference between the actual language in the sections. Article 37.071 is simple and straightforth, “In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence.” While article 37.07 does have that language, there is additional language. This additional language defines “prior criminal record.”
Sound principles of statutory construction require that this court presume that every word in a statute is used for a purpose. Polk v. State, 676 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. *913Crim.App.1984). The majority’s interpretation ignores this principle. Article 37.071 was in place before the recent amendment to article 37.07 § 3(a). The legislature could have deleted all references to “prior criminal record” but chose not to do so. Therefore, we must continue to give meaning to that phrase as defined. Consequently, I would hold the amended statute allows any matter deemed relevant to sentencing in only those areas other than unadjudicat-ed extraneous offenses which have not resulted in final convictions.
Although the extraneous unadjudicated offenses were inadmissible, I would not reverse. The acts were not in any way heinous or even violent. In light of the vicious nature of the crime (there were 68 stab wounds and 6 cutting wounds on the deceased body) and the punishment assessed, I have no difficulty in determining beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the punishment. TEX.R.APP.P. 81(b)(2).