Davis v. State
Decision Date | 12 January 2011 |
Docket Number | No. AP-74,393.,AP-74,393. |
Parties | Irving Alvin DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ruben P. Morales, El Paso, for Appellant.
Lily Stroud, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Jeffrey L. Van Horn, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
In June 2002, appellant was convicted of murdering Melissa Medina in the course of committing or attempting to commit aggravated sexual assault. 1 Based on the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, §§ 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. Art. 37.071, § 2(g).2 In June 2007, we affirmed the trial court's judgment as it related to appellant's conviction, reversed it as it related to his punishment, and remanded the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. Davis v. State, No. AP-74,393, 2007 WL 1704071 (Tex.Crim.App. June 13, 2007)(not designated for publication). In February 2008, the trial court held a new punishment hearing before a new jury. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court, acting in accordance with the jury's answers to the two special issues, again assessed appellant's punishment at death. Appellant now raises nine issues on direct appeal from the second punishment hearing. After reviewing appellant's points of error, we find them to be without merit and affirm the trial court's judgment.
In point of error one, appellant argues that "the trial court erred when it allowedthe state to present evidence that appellant had become a Satanist while imprisoned on death row." He specifically complains that the trial court erred by admitting state's Exhibits 247, 248, and 285 through 301, permitting the testimony of state's expert witness Donald Haley, and requiring appellant to display to the jury the tattoo of a pentagram on his chest. Appellant raises both constitutional and statutory claims, arguing that the trial court violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Rules 401 and 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Because appellant bases his single point of error on more than one legal theory, his entire point of error is multifarious. Tex.R.App. P. 38.1. We will, however, review his arguments in the interest of justice.
We review a trial court's decision to admit evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 217 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). The trial court abuses its discretion only when the decision lies "outside the zone of reasonable disagreement." Id.
The prosecutor responded that the state intended to introduce appellant's prison records, writings, drawings, and "a pentagram that is etched into his body that was either carved or burned" to show that, in 2006, appellant had declared that he had been a Satanist since 2005. The prosecutor added, "We have evidence that will come in through our expert witness that he will testify about satanists and illegal activities and violent activities that have been committed on the part of satanists." The prosecutor explained that "there is no need for the State to prove that the Defendant himself engaged in all of those illegal violent acts, only that the group is known to do that, and that the Defendant is a member of that group." The prosecutor further stated that appellant's "belief in satanism is being offered as evidence of his character, to show his belief systems" and how they relate to future-dangerousness; the issues of character and future dangerousness "are at the heart of the sentencing phase in a capital murder case." Following the parties' arguments, the trial courtgranted the motion in limine "until such time as [the state's] expert can establish outside the hearing of the Jury that, in fact, there is a propensity in this organization or this faith or this religion ... for illegal activities or an [sic] engaging in violent activities."
The state's expert witness, Donald Vaughn Haley, later testified on voir dire examination outside the presence of the jury that Satanism advocates violence, as evidenced by the discussion of human sacrifice in The Satanic Bible and the "rituals of destruction" contained in The Satanic Rituals. Haley also gave several examples of people who committed murder and mutilation "in the name of Satan." Over defense counsel's objections on relevance and the First Amendment, the trial court ruled that Haley would be permitted "to testify in the area of the satanic religion" and that "all of that evidence is relevant to the issue of future dangerousness and it is outside the protection of the First Amendment." Appellant also filed written objections to the court's ruling, arguing that the evidence was "irrelevant" and that its admission violated Rule 403 and his rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
At trial, the state offered into evidence various items obtained from appellant's prison cell, including five books (state's Exhibits 285-289), three writing tablets (state's Exhibits 290, 291, and 293), seven drawings (state's Exhibits 294-299 and 301), and a handwritten note (state's Exhibit 300). The books were entitled Necronomicon, The Secret Life of a Satanist, Satan Speaks!, The Satanic Rituals, and The Satanic Bible. Appellant's writing tablets and drawings contained Satanic imagery and references, including lists of "Satanic statements," "Satanic rules," and "Satanic sins." One of appellant's drawings depicts a naked woman who is bound and gagged, and another drawing depicts a woman with a slashed throat. In the handwritten note, which appellant described as "a suplement [sic] to my application to the Church of Satan," appellant expressed his desire to pledge allegiance to the Church of Satan. The state also offered into evidence appellant's grievance forms (state's Exhibit 247) and other records (state's Exhibit 248) from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). In a grievance form received by TDCJ on June 19, 2007, appellant stated that he had been a Satanist since 2005, that he was also a "blood sorcerer" who had taken up vampirism, and that he was without the materials that he needed to practice his religion. Other records showed that, in 2006, appellant asked TDCJ to change his religion on his travel card from Buddhist to Satanist and that in 2007 he requested that "Vampirism/Thaumaturgy" be entered in addition to Satanism. The state also demonstrated that appellant had an inverted pentagram on his chest by having appellant lift his shirt and stand before the jury.
When Dr. Haley testified before the jury, the state asked him about "the philosophy of satanists regarding human sacrifice." Haley responded with passages from The Satanic Bible.
Haley testified that to destroy a person means to cause their death. Defense expert John Gordon Melton disagreed with Haley's definition. Melton testified that, according to Anton LaVey, the author of The Satanic Bible, to destroy a person means to "symbolically curse them." Melton, however, acknowledged on cross-examination that there are some Satanists who believe that Satan is a negative personal antideity,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jessop v. State
...at 378–79. We review the trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 803 (Tex.Crim.App.2010); Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we do not disturb t......
-
Temple v. State
...of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 10, of the Texas Constitution.” (citations omitted)). FN16. See Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 821 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (“We have consistently held that argument that strikes at a defendant over the shoulders of defense counsel is improper.......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...Crim. App. 2019). But "argument that strikes at a defendant over the shoulders of defense counsel is improper." Davis v. State , 329 S.W.3d 798, 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Wilson v. State , 7 S.W.3d 136, 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), and Dinkins v. State , 894 S.W.2d 330, 357 (Tex. Cr......
-
Lumsden v. State
...review a trial court’s ruling on an improper-jury-argument objection by the State for an abuse of discretion. See Davis v. State , 329 S.W.3d 798, 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), cert. denied , 565 U.S. 830, 132 S.Ct. 128, 181 L.Ed.2d 50 (2011). Permissible jury argument falls into four distinc......
-
Evidence
...subject by a state gang association and the college where he worked; was qualified to opine on the subject of Satanism. Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A witness who is a professor of psychology at a state university, who leads the eyewitness identification and rese......
-
Evidence
...subject by a state gang association and the college where he worked; was qualified to opine on the subject of Satanism. Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A witness who is a professor of psychology at a state university, who leads the eyewitness identification and rese......
-
Evidence
...subject by a state gang association and the college where he worked; was qualified to opine on the subject of Satanism. Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A witness who is a professor of psychology at a state university, who leads the eyewitness identification and rese......
-
Evidence
...subject by a state gang association and the college where he worked; was qualified to opine on the subject of Satanism. Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). • A witness who is a professor of psychology at a state university, who leads the eyewitness identification and rese......