CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

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 appellant and six other prison inmates escaped from prison in December 2000. These prison escapees murdered a police officer during a robbery at an Oshman’s sporting goods store on Christmas Eve 2000. As a result of this incident, the appellant was charged with capital murder. A jury convicted the appellant of this offense, and the trial court sentenced the appellant to death pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues submitted at the punishment phase. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant claims that the trial court erroneously excluded mitigating evidence in the form of a document offered as defense exhibit 39. The top of this document states, “TDCJ Connally Unit.” It ranks the appellant the lowest of the escapees in leadership qualities. The identity of the person who prepared the document is unknown. The court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to decide that the document did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. There is no evidence showing who prepared the document or whether it is a record of regularly conducted activity. Also, the record reflects that appellant presented from other sources a significant amount of mitigating evidence that was cumulative of the mitigating evidence contained in the document. The appellant claims that the trial court erroneously denied his challenges for cause to 10 veniremembers during the voir dire process to select the primary jury panel. However, the appellant had one peremptory challenge remaining when he accepted the twelfth juror. The appellant suffered no harm from any error in the trial court’s denial of these 10 challenges for cause, the court finds. The appellant claims that the trial court erroneously denied his challenges for cause to three veniremembers during the alternate juror selection process which was separate and distinct from the process to select the primary panel. The appellant, however, did not show that any of the two alternate jurors participated in any of the jury deliberations in his case. The appellant, therefore, suffered no harm from any error in the trial court’s denial of these three challenges for cause, the court holds. The appellant claims that the trial court allowed the prosecution to ask four veniremembers improper commitment questions during the process to select the primary jury panel. Any error was harmless, the court finds. None of these four veniremembers sat on appellant’s jury because appellant exercised a peremptory challenge on each one of them, and appellant had one peremptory challenge remaining after selection of the primary jury panel. OPINION:Hervey, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

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.