Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The defendant was charged with murdering a woman while burglarizing her house, though he was also suspected of murdering the woman’s son a few hours later. He gave a confession to the police. The defendant testified at trial that he was not involved and that his confession was not true. A portion of his confession was admitted into evidence. In that portion, the defendant said that he and his friend knew another boy from a wealthy family that owned new cars, and the defendant and his friend planned to steal the cars. According to the confession, they knocked on the back door of the house, and when the mother came to open it, the defendant shot her in the side. When the woman moved a little, the defendant shot her again. He and his friend wrapped the woman’s body in sheets then dropped it into the water at Crater Lake. The two went back to the family’s house and took one of the cars. During the defendant’s testimony, he explained that he had been drinking heavily and using pills when a police man woke him up in one of the stolen cars later on the night of the murders. He explained both how he tried to get on the ground when ordered to do so by the police, and also how he and his friend ended up driving through a glass building. His friend was shot and the defendant was cut badly. He said several officers later came to his home, forced their way in, pinned him to the wall, then placed him on the pavement and talked roughly to him. All of this, he said, resulted in him giving a false confession to the police. The defendant asked for a jury instruction on the effect his “intoxication or illness resulting from the loss of blood” had on the voluntariness of his confession. The defendant was convicted. During the punishment phase of trial, the remainder of the defendant’s statement was admitted. In this portion, the defendant explained how, after they stole the cars, they met up with the woman’s son. They told the son a story that another friend of theirs had shot himself while shooting squirrels, and they needed to get him help. While out in the woods purportedly looking for the friend who shot himself, the defendant’s companion shot the boy three times, once at close range. The pair took the keys to the other family car and drove them home. They cleaned up at the defendant’s trailer, then went to a nightclub. The jury imposed the death penalty. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court throws out two of the defendant’s challenges to witness testimony because the defendant failed to object in one instance, and has tried to enlarge the scope of his objection on appeal in other instance. The court addresses the defendant’s argument that his jury charge on intoxication or illness due to loss of blood. Assuming there is evidence to support the findings that the defendant’s intoxication and injury overbore his own will and caused him to confess, the evidence of his intoxication and injury does not raise any constitutional voluntariness issues because this evidence does not involve any police coercion or other official over-reaching. The court rejects the defendant’s argument that Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), has made the Texas death penalty statute unconstitutional. The defendant argues that by the time the jury reached the mitigation special issue, the maximum sentence that he could have received based on the jury’s partial and incomplete verdict was life. The court instead finds that by the time the jury reaches the mitigation special issue, the prosecution has proven all aggravating “facts legally essential to the punishment.” Furthermore, the mitigation special issue does not send “mixed signals” because it permits a capital sentencing jury to give effect to mitigating evidence in every conceivable manner in which the evidence might be relevant. OPINION:Hervey, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which Keller, PJ., Meyers, Price, Womack, Keasler, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Johnson, J., concurred.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.