Morrow v. State, 71219
Decision Date | 31 May 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 71219,71219 |
Citation | 910 S.W.2d 471 |
Parties | Ricky Eugene MORROW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
1
Appellant was convicted of capital murder pursuant to Tex.Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2). After the jury affirmatively answered the punishment issues, appellant was sentenced to death. Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. 37.071(b). Appeal to this court is automatic. Id. at (h). 2 We will affirm.
In 58 different points of error, appellant complains the trial judge erred in denying his challenges for cause. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2). In each instance appellant challenged a potential juror for cause because of a venireperson's stated belief that certain evidence was not mitigating, his stated belief that certain evidence was aggravating, or his stated belief that certain evidence may or may not be mitigating. 3 Appellant does not argue that any of these potential jurors would not consider any mitigating evidence. See, Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 736, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 2234, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992). A juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty in every case will fail in good faith to consider the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as the instructions require him to do. Rather appellant's challenges are to jurors' specific views about specific evidence. 4 The State responds that the weight to be given any mitigating or aggravating evidence adduced at punishment is to be determined by the individual juror.
We previously addressed this issue in Johnson v. State where we explained:
it is not error for a trial court to overrule a challenge for cause where it is shown that a juror will not or may not give a particular variety of "mitigating evidence" any consideration. Cuevas v. State, 742 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied (1988); Cordova v. State, 733 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied (1988).
The United States Supreme Court has not yet mandated that jurors must give any amount of weight to any particular piece of evidence that might be offered in mitigation of punishment. Cordova, 733 S.W.2d at 189. What the Court has decided is that the factfinder must not be precluded or prohibited from considering any relevant evidence offered in mitigation of the punishment to be assessed, or in answering the punishment question. Cordova [733 S.W.2d] at 189, citing Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). See also Cuevas, 742 S.W.2d at 345. What this means is that the factfinder must be allowed to hear the evidence and act upon it. Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980).
In Texas, this mitigating evidence is admissible at the punishment phase of a capital murder trial. [Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. 37.071.] Once admitted, the jury may then give it weight, if in their individual minds it is appropriate, when answering the questions which determine sentence. Adams, 448 U.S. at 46, 100 S.Ct. at 2527. However, "[t]he amount of weight that the particular factfinder might give any particular piece of evidence is left to 'the range of judgment and discretion' exercised by each juror." Cordova, [733 S.W.2d] at 189, quoting, Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980); Cuevas, 742 S.W.2d at 346.
773 S.W.2d 322, 330-331 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), affirmed, Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993). This reasoning is also true for particular evidence which a potential juror believes is aggravating. The Supreme Court has recognized that much of the evidence admitted during the punishment phase of a capital trial could potentially be either mitigating or aggravating. Id. 509 U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2669 ( ); Penry, 492 U.S. at 323, 109 S.Ct. at 2949 ( ).
Appellant argues that case law concerning Penry and its progeny stand for the proposition that certain evidence is mitigating as a matter of law. This is incorrect. These cases concern whether our punishment scheme permits a juror to give effect to certain evidence which that juror believes is mitigating. Johnson, 509 U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2669 (); Penry, 492 U.S. at 327-328, 109 S.Ct. at 2951-2952 (); Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 183, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2332, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (plurality opinion) (); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 113-114, 102 S.Ct. 869, 876, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), held, the sentencer may not ("refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence"); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2964, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion) ()
Appellant cites Trevino v. State, 815 S.W.2d 592 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 503 U.S. 562, 112 S.Ct. 1547, 118 L.Ed.2d 193 (1992) for the proposition that youth is mitigating as a matter of law. In Trevino, as in this instance, certain potential jurors stated that they did not believe evidence of youth was mitigating. Id. 815 S.W.2d at 612-614. In Trevino we held the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant's challenge for cause because he had failed to clearly state the law concerning mitigating evidence. We stated, "[c]learly then, the law provides that youth is a mitigating factor which must be considered." Id., at 614. A more correct statement would be: youth may be a mitigating factor. See, Robertson, 871 S.W.2d at 712, n. 13. But we continued and explained that while a juror must consider the evidence, a juror does not have to give weight to that evidence. Trevino, 815 S.W.2d at 614.
Veniremembers are not challengeable for their particular views about particular evidence. Our prior decisions do not require a trial judge to inform jurors or potential jurors that certain evidence is mitigating as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial judge did not err in overruling appellant's challenges for cause because the veniremembers did not believe certain evidence was mitigating; nor did the trial judge err in overruling appellant's challenges for cause because they believed certain evidence was aggravating. 5 These fifty-eight points of error are overruled.
Appellant's fifth through twelfth and 109th points of error contend the trial judge erred in refusing to permit appellant to inform potential jurors that certain evidence was mitigating and must be considered as such in assessing punishment. 6 The trial judge did not err, because, as stated above, such a comment would have been an incorrect statement of the law. Points of error five through twelve and 109 are overruled.
In his 19th, 23rd, 30th, and 74th points of error, appellant contends the trial judge erred in overruling his challenges for cause of potential jurors who would hold the State to a burden of proof greater than beyond a reasonable doubt. The State counters that only they can challenge a juror for cause on this ground under Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. 35.16(b)(3). This article provides that the State may challenge any potential juror who "has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment."
Appellant recognizes the State's ability to challenge potential jurors under the statute. However, he contends that in the interest of a fair trial, he, too, should be able to challenge jurors on this basis. As an analogy, appellant argues that if the State can challenge potential jurors upon law which the defendant is entitled to rely (e.g., that a juror is unable to assess the minimum punishment,) then he should be able to challenge potential jurors upon law which the State is entitled to rely.
The rationale for why the State may make challenges based upon the veniremembers ability to assess the minimum punishment was discussed in Nethery v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morris v. State
...350, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993)). While it is true that no evidence is mitigating as a matter of law, Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex.Cr.App.1995), it does not follow that because a veniremember is not subject to a challenge for cause, a punishment issue is not subject......
-
McGinn v. State
...are a double-edged sword, construable as either increasing or decreasing the likelihood of future violence. See Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471, 471-473 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1192, 116 S.Ct. 1683, 134 L.Ed.2d 784 (1996)(evidence can be either mitigating or aggravating ......
-
Raby v. State
...a particular type of evidence as mitigating, that prospective juror cannot be removed for cause on that basis. See Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied 517 U.S. 1192, 116 S.Ct. 1683, 134 L.Ed.2d 784 (1996). However, appellant propounded in his motion, as he prop......
-
Jones v. State
...right to challenge disqualified jurors even when their disqualifications might seem to make them favor the State. See Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.Crim.App.1995). By the standards of stare decisis, analysis of precedent, and logic, the holding of Payton is unsupportable. It is also ......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...to the defendant because the courts recognize that the state has a duty to see that justice is done in individual cases. Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1192, 116 S.Ct. 1683, 134 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1996). However, a defendant is not entitled to exc......
-
Table of Cases
...Crim. App. 1988), §14:57.2.1.4 Morrow v. State, 757 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988), §§16:52.12.2, 16:67 Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1192, 116 S.Ct. 1683, 134 L.Ed.2d 784 (1996), §§14:68.1, 14:68.2, 14:68.3, 14:147, 14:153.2......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...to the defendant because the courts recognize that the state has a duty to see that justice is done in individual cases. Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1192, 116 S.Ct. 1683, 134 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1996). However, a defendant is not entitled to exc......
-
Jury selection and voir dire
...to the defendant because the courts recognize that the state has a duty to see that justice is done in individual cases. Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1192, 116 S.Ct. 1683, 134 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1996). However, a defendant is not entitled to exc......