Molandes v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 53814,53814 |
| Citation | 571 S.W.2d 3 |
| Parties | Michael Dean MOLANDES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is an appeal from a conviction for capital murder in which punishment was fixed at life. V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 19.03; Art. 37.071, V.A.C.C.P.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged; the three grounds of error raised on appeal are all directed to the court's charge.
In his first ground of error appellant contends the jury charge erroneously allowed a conviction for capital murder under the law of criminal responsibility for the conduct of another. V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 7.01. He argues that the law of parties does not apply to capital murder and urges that Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 540 S.W.2d 693, which he acknowledges is adverse to his position, be overruled. We decline to so hold and overrule the ground of error.
He next asserts the trial court erroneously refused to inform the jury in the charge at the guilt stage of the punishment alternatives for capital murder. The court properly reserved the punishment issues for the punishment stage, as is required under the express terms of Art. 37.071, supra. The ground of error is without merit.
Finally, appellant argues that the jury charge authorizing a "no" verdict under Art. 37.071, supra, on agreement of ten jurors is unconstitutional. He contends this violates the requirement of a unanimous verdict, and cites Art. 5, Sec. 13, Texas Constitution, and Art. 36.29, V.A.C.C.P. The constitutional right to a Unanimous verdict under the cited provision extends to felony criminal cases. See Clark v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 278, 276 S.W.2d 819; cf. Randel v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 282, 219 S.W.2d 689. See also Interpretive Commentary to Vernon's Ann.Tex.Const., Art. 5, Sec. 13, in which it is stated:
"Proponents of the unanimous rule at the Constitutional Convention of 1875 claimed that 'cheap justice was injustice', but they were successful only to the extent that the convention retained the unanimous rule in criminal cases of felony."
The provision here under attack, however, inures to the defendant's benefit in that it allows a favorable verdict resulting in life imprisonment to be returned on agreement of ten jurors, whereas the position urged by appellant would require a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bey
...on less than unanimity. See, e.g., State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 302 S.E.2d 144, 163 (1983) (Exum, J., dissenting); Molandes v. State, 571 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). For example, under the Act, the unanimity requirement redounds to the benefit of the defendant by mandating that he o......
-
Sanchez v. State
...36.29(a), 37.07, § 3(c) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see also Sanchez v. State, 23 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Molandes v. State, 571 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Hanson v. State, 55 S.W.3d 681, 693 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. ref'd). Texas case law makes clear that unanimous verdic......
-
Williams v. State
...no requirement in the United States Constitution of unanimonity, such a requirement does exist under Texas law. See Molandes v. State, 571 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); TEX. CONST. art. 5, § 13; TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN., arts. 37.03, 36.29.7 The fifth federal circuit court found state act......
-
Hendrix v. State
...criminal cases. Tex. Const., art. V, § 13; TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.29(a) (Vernon Supp.2004); see also Molandes v. State, 571 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (discussing constitutional right to unanimous verdict in felony cases); Phillips v. State, 130 S.W.3d 343, 351-52 & nn. 6-7 ......