Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A jury convicted appellant of capital murder. The trial court sentenced appellant to death pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues submitted at the punishment phase. Appellant raises thirty-one points of error. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant claims that the state presented no evidence that appellant knew the victim was a police officer when appellant killed him. Appellant admitted during the interview with the television reporter that he knew the victim was a police officer when he killed him. Appellant’s statements at the hospital also reasonably support an inference that appellant knew the victim was a police officer when appellant killed him particularly since there is no contrary, affirmative evidence in this record that appellant learned of the identity of the victim during his arrest. The appellant claims that the trial court denied his challenges for cause to several veniremembers. Appellant, therefore, failed to preserve any error on whether Fletcher was challengeable for cause. Under these circumstances, he cannot show harm from the denial of his challenges for cause to the other three veniremembers since he received three additional peremptory challenges. The appellant claims that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress a custodial videotaped interview that he gave to a television reporter about two days after his arrest. This record clearly does not present the scenario where the police employ an informant to deliberately elicit incriminating statements from an in-custody defendant solely for the purpose of helping the police gather evidence against the defendant. The court cannot conclude that the reporter was acting as a state agent when he interviewed appellant. The appellant claims that the trial court erred “in allowing the oral statements of [appellant] to law enforcement personnel while in custody.” Appellant claims that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence appellant’s custodial oral statements to hospital personnel who were treating appellant’s injuries. These statements were not the result of “interrogation” by law enforcement personnel or their agents. The appellant claims that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence nine (possibly ten) autopsy photographs of the victim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion to admit the autopsy photographs because they helped explain the medical examiner’s testimony describing the victim’s various wounds for which appellant is responsible. The appellant asserts that he objected to evidence of extraneous offenses in part because this evidence “would not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The record, however, does not support this assertion. The appellant claims that “the trial court erred in allowing the State to use the juvenile records against appellant as a violation of due process and equal protection.” This did not violate due process or equal protection principles. The court declines to revisit well-settled jurisprudence upholding the admissibility of evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses at a capital sentencing proceeding. Neither Atkins nor case-law applying it require the state to affirmatively show that a capital murder defendant is not mentally retarded. The court rejects the appellant’s challenges to the Texas death-penalty law. OPINION:Hervey, J., Keller, PJ., Meyers, Womack, Keasler, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., join. Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.