Green v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 60133,60133 |
| Citation | 682 S.W.2d 271 |
| Parties | G.W. GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
A jury found appellant guilty of capital murder and answered the three special issues affirmatively. Punishment was assessed at death. See Art. 37.071, V.A.C.C.P.
Appellant asserts thirty-one grounds of error. In his nineteenth ground appellant contends that the trial court erred in excusing several prospective jurors.
This ground of error appears to be based upon two separate contentions: that the trial court struck certain prospective jurors because they said that it would be difficult for them to impose the death penalty upon one "convicted solely under the association of the law of parties when such person might not have actually committed the actual physical act;" and that the trial court improperly struck certain prospective jurors after they stated that they did not believe in the death penalty.
Appellant neither names these "certain prospective jurors" nor cites where the alleged error may be found in the record. He cites no cases in support of his legal contentions. Despite these obstacles, we will address the issue.
A careful reading of the record shows appellant's contentions to be without merit. Many of the prosecutor's questions concerned the veniremembers' feelings about subjecting a defendant to the possibility of the death penalty, when he was convicted by applying the law of parties and was not himself the triggerman. No veniremember was excused for an answer to these questions. If appellant now complains of the questioning upon this subject, we note that appellant did not object to any question concerning application of the law of parties to the death penalty. Failure to object waives error, if any, that is presented. Meanes v. State, 668 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Evans v. State, 656 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); White v. State, 629 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Russell v. State, 598 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).
Of the seven veniremembers struck because they stated that they did not believe in the death penalty, appellant objected to the striking of four. We will address only those to which objection was made. White, supra.
To the striking of venirewoman Talley appellant objected "on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the statute;" although appellant's three other objections are certainly not models of clarity, we understand them to allege a violation of the limitations upon exclusion established in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968).
In Witherspoon the United States Supreme Court stated:
Specifically, we hold that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.
The Supreme Court went on to say:
... nothing we say today bears upon the power of a State to execute a defendant sentenced to death by a jury from which the only veniremen who were in fact excluded for cause were those who made unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them, ...
391 U.S. at 522, 88 S.Ct. at 1777.
Venireman Grimes was examined as follows:
....
....
....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Scott
...adequately covered the requirements of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), 21 and Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985). 22 The Court found "... appellant was not egregiousl......
-
Hathorn v. State
...responsibility for the conduct of another are addressed, are inapplicable to the punishment phase of the trial. Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271, 286 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985). Nevertheless, the record reveals that the comment was ......
-
Johnson v. State
...Appellant correctly notes that the law of parties cannot be applied to the punishment phase of a capital murder trial. Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985). When the law of parties is presented to the jury in ......
-
Harris v. State
...not reasonably find 'yes' on special issue number one, and the punishment must be reformed to life imprisonment. Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271, 288 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). Being aware that we look solely to the evidence reflecting the appellant's conduct without considering the law of parties, ......
-
Table of cases
...[14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d) 2:130 Gutierrez v. State 764 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) 3:1770 3:2070, 6:60 Green v. State 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) 2:110, 6:290 Green v. State 705 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986, no pet.) 3:660, 6:382 Green v. State 764 S.W.2d 242 (......
-
Offenses against person
...and expectations, and not those of his cohorts. See, Martinez v. State , 899 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994); Green v. State , 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). §6:300 Anti-Parties Charge Under Texas law, an accused is entitled to an anti-parties charge; that is, an instruction that the ......
-
Criminal responsibility - parties to crime
...a defendant “shown to be culpable due to his own actions, intentions, and expectations and not those of his cohorts.” Green v. State , 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034, 84 L. Ed. 2d 794, 105 S. Ct. 1407 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State , 8......