James v. State

Decision Date26 April 1989
Docket NumberNo. 69653,69653
Citation772 S.W.2d 84
PartiesJohnny JAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
OPINION

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for capital murder. V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2). After finding the appellant guilty, the jury returned affirmative findings to the special issues under Article 37.071, V.A.C.C.P. Punishment was assessed at death.

The appellant was convicted of intentionally causing the death of Barbara Harrington Mayfield in the course of committing and attempting to commit the aggravated sexual assault of A.H. Appellant raises sixteen points of error. 1 We will affirm appellant's conviction.

In his first point of error, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's affirmative answer to the second special issue. Art. 37.071(b)(2) V.A.C.C.P. Although appellant does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for capital murder, a complete recitation of the facts underlying his conviction is necessary because those facts could have been used by the jury when considering appellant's future dangerousness. Mitchell v. State, 650 S.W.2d 801, 812 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

On October 21, 1985, appellant left his home in Winnie, Texas to go to Gilchrist, Texas. Appellant was armed with a .38 caliber Rossi revolver and indicated in a signed statement that he had been drinking heavily all day. At approximately 10:00 P.M., appellant left B.J.'s Lounge in High Island, Texas with the bar's proprietor, Barbara Mayfield. In his signed statement, appellant said that he was "messing around" with the gun and accidentally shot the floor board of the car, learning afterwards that he had inadvertently shot Mayfield in the foot. The physical evidence contradicted appellant's version of the facts. 2 At some point after this shooting, appellant gave Mayfield a bed sheet to wrap around her foot and put her into the trunk of his car.

At approximately 1:00 A.M. on October 22, appellant drove into the parking lot of a convenience store in Winnie, Texas. He entered the store, looked around, and pulled a gun from a bag. Appellant pointed the gun at A.H.'s face. Appellant told A______ H______, the clerk, to give him all of the money and handed her the bag, and she put the money into the bag. Appellant, still pointing the gun at her, told A______ H______ to get into the car. When they were in the car, appellant told A______ H______ to do as he said or she would end up "like the other one." When appellant made this threat, he pointed to a pool of blood on the floor in front of the passenger's seat.

The two drove to the "Hebert Road," which is an isolated, rural road outside of Winnie. Appellant stopped the car and told A______ H______ to drive, but she told appellant that she couldn't drive a car with a standard transmission. Appellant and A______ H______ went to the back of the car. Appellant gave A______ H______ the keys and told her to open the trunk. A______ H______ tried to open the trunk, but she was nervous and dropped the keys. Appellant picked up the keys and opened the trunk, revealing Mayfield's presence to A______ H______ for the first time. A______ H______ helped Mayfield out of the trunk. Appellant told Mayfield to drive the car, and he got into the back seat A______ H______ got into the front passenger seat, and Mayfield drove the car further up the road. At some point, appellant instructed Mayfield to pull the car over to the side of the road.

Appellant instructed the two women to get into the back seat of the car. Pointing the gun at them, he told the women to take off their clothes. This done, he said that "he had never seen two ladies make out" and told the women to rub their hands on each others' breasts. After doing this for a while, appellant told the women to put their hands between each others' legs. The women complied, but appellant said "he didn't see the hands moving fast enough." A______ H______ testified that they had done this for about twenty to thirty minutes when appellant told her to suck on Mayfield's breast. The women did as appellant instructed until he told them to stop and then got into the back seat with them. Appellant said, "I've never had a black woman before," and then forced A______ H______'s mouth onto his penis while holding the gun in his right hand at the back of her head and said, "Suck on this." Appellant told A______ H______, "You can do better than that." After a period of time, appellant told A______ H______ to stop and then told her to get on top of him and to place his penis in her vagina. He then told A______ H______ to move up and down. After ejaculating, appellant told A______ H______ to stop. During all of this, Mayfield was huddled there, in the back seat, crying.

Appellant then told everyone to get out of the car. The women put their clothes back on. While A______ H______ was tying her shoe, she heard Mayfield shout, "Please, don't do it. Oh my God, don't do it." A______ H______ looked back, over her shoulder, and saw appellant aim his gun at her. She raised her arms to cover her head and appellant fired. A______ H______ felt that she had been shot and fell to the ground. She decided to play dead hoping appellant would leave her alone. A______ H______ then lost consciousness until she was roused by her brother, who was part of a search party organized after it was discovered that she was missing from the convenience store.

According to his own statement, appellant next turned his gun against Mayfield. Medical evidence indicated that Mayfield had been shot twice in the head at very close range. A______ H______ was then shot twice more. Appellant's statement said that he then drove back to his home, stopping on the way to dispose of his gun and count the money he took in the robbery. Upon arriving, he told his wife that he had been out hunting and that he had sold his gun for $100. 3

During the punishment phase of trial the State introduced psychological evidence, reputation evidence, prior bad acts, and appellant's criminal record. Dr. James Grigson testified that, based on a hypothetical question, appellant was a sociopath and that it was a 100% certainty that he would commit acts of violence in the future. 4 A police officer and several people from various cities where appellant had lived testified that appellant had a bad reputation for being a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. Ethel Cathey testified that she had been the repeated victim of appellant's uninvited sexual advances and harassment. Lewis Garza testified that he had seen appellant initiate a number of near-altercations with bar patrons. Finally, the State introduced appellant's criminal record. Twice, appellant received probation for driving while intoxicated. Also, in 1972, appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation. Appellant received five years' probation for this conviction and completed his probationary period. 5

Appellant cites a number of cases in which this Court has found that the evidence was insufficient to support an affirmative answer to the second special issue, and argues that these cases are similar to his. Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.Cr.App.1987); Garcia v. State, 626 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Wallace v. State, 618 S.W.2d 67 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Roney v. State, 632 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Warren v. State, 562 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Without individually detailing and distinguishing the facts of the cases cited by appellant, we find that there is more evidence tending to show that appellant will continue to be a threat to society than in any of these cases.

When deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding that a defendant will constitute a continuing threat of violence to society, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of Art. 37.071(b)(2) [V.A.C.C.P.] beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keeton, supra at 61. In reviewing this point of error, we will outline the evidence that we find to be important in upholding the jury's findings.

The facts of this crime are heinous and exhibit a brutal disregard for fundamental human dignity and life. In a period of several hours, appellant committed two kidnappings, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, capital murder, and attempted capital murder. In addition to this impressive array of crimes, appellant compounded his inhumanity by the manner in which he terrorized his two victims. The deceased, Barbara Mayfield, was locked in the trunk of appellant's car, left frightened and bleeding with a painful, but not fatal, gunshot wound. Ms. Mayfield and A.H. were both forced to suffer the indignity of being forced to disrobe, at gun point, and perform homosexual acts upon a stranger. "As this Court has previously stated, the circumstances of the capital offense itself, if severe enough, can be sufficient to sustain an affirmative finding to the second special issue." O'Bryan v. State, 591 S.W.2d 464, 480 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). We find these facts to be so shocking that a rational trier of fact could have answered "yes" to the second special issue based solely on the facts of appellant's offense.

Psychiatric predictions may constitute a basis for finding a defendant to be a continuing threat to society. Cockrum v. State, 758 S.W.2d 577, 593 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). A rational trier of fact could have believed Dr. Grigson's testimony that appellant was certain to constitute a continuing threat to society and answered "yes" based on this testimony.

Reputation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Fuller v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 25, 1992
    ...would necessarily encounter difficulty rationally deciding the critical issues of this case after viewing them. See James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84, 98-99 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), vacated on other grounds 493 U.S. 885, 110 S.Ct. 225, 107 L.Ed.2d 178 (1989); Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 370-371......
  • Dinkins v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 1, 1995
    ...a statute as it applies to a particular defendant, McBride v. State, 862 S.W.2d 600, 610-611 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); and, James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84, 91 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), vacated, 493 U.S. 885, 110 S.Ct. 225, 107 L.Ed.2d 178 (1989), affirmed, 805 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), we need only ad......
  • McFarland v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 21, 1996
    ...v. State, 836 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 999, 113 S.Ct. 600, 121 L.Ed.2d 537 (1992); see also James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84, 91 (Tex.Cr.App.), vacated on other grounds, 493 U.S. 885, 110 S.Ct. 225, 107 L.Ed.2d 178 (1989). Appellant was tried under the 1992 version......
  • Bailey v. City of Austin
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1998
    ...Additionally, neither domestic partners nor unmarried partners constitutes a suspect class requiring strict scrutiny. See James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84, 92 (Tex.Crim.App.), remanded for consideration on other grounds, 493 U.S. 885, 110 S.Ct. 225, 107 L.Ed.2d 178 (1989) (citing Califano v. J......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 books & journal articles
  • Jury Selection and Voir Dire
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2019 Contents
    • August 16, 2019
    ...Crim. App. 1994). To prevail on appeal, a defendant must raise a specific objection about the jury shuffle at trial. James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). If CCP Art. 35.11 has not been followed, and a defendant requested the trial procedure about which he complains on appea......
  • Jury Selection and Voir Dire
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • August 17, 2018
    ...Crim. App. 1994). To prevail on appeal, a defendant must raise a specific objection about the jury shuffle at trial. James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). If CCP Art. 35.11 has not been followed, and a defendant requested the trial procedure about which he complains on appea......
  • Jury Selection and Voir Dire
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2020 Contents
    • August 16, 2020
    ...Crim. App. 1994). To prevail on appeal, a defendant must raise a specific objection about the jury shuffle at trial. James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). If CCP Art. 35.11 has not been followed, and a defendant requested the trial procedure about which he complains on appea......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 4, 2021
    ...6:110 Jamail v. State 787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) 11:820 James v. Kentucky 466 U.S. 341 (1984) 1:240, 3:900 James v. State 772 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) 1:370 James v. State 805 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) 6:400 Janjua v. State 991 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT