author: WOMACK, J., COCHRAN, J., JOHNSON, J.,

text:
    The STATE of Texas v. Joe Edward LARUE, Appellee.
    No. PD-985-03.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En banc.
    Nov. 10, 2004.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 2005.
    Douglas M. Barlow, Beaumont, for Appellant.
    Rodney D. Conerly, Assistant District Attorney, Beaumont, Matthew Paul, State’s Attorney, Austin, for State.
   WOMACK, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court,

in which KELLER, P.J., and MEYERS, KEASLER, HERVEY, HOLCOMB, and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.

In this case, we must determine whether the exclusion of evidence was an appropriate sanction for the State’s violation of a discovery order. The specific issue before us is whether the court of appeals correctly held that the trial court erred in finding the State’s conduct to be a “willful” violation of the order and in excluding the untimely disclosed evidence on that basis. Because we find that the State’s conduct was not willful, we affirm the court of appeals’ holding that the evidence should not have been excluded.

The underlying facts of this case are essentially undisputed. The appellee was indicted for capital murder on November 1, 2001. The following is a timeline of the relevant events:

March 30, 2000: State submits evidence to lab for DNA testing — oral swabs, oral slides, DNA and blood cards from victim, blood vial and bloodstain from the appellee.

April 28, 2000: State submits evidence to lab for DNA testing — victim's shirt and cigarette butt.

Sept. 12, 2000: State receives lab report with results of analyses of March 30 and April 28 submissions.

November 1, 2001: Appellee indicted for capital murder.

November 7, 2001: Defense counsel appointed.

December 5, 2001: State submits additional evidence to lab for DNA testing-fingernail samples, hair, and swabs from victim.

December 14, 2001: Defense files motion for discovery.

January 25, 2002: Court grants discovery motion without fixing a date for discovery to be accomplished.

April 17, 2002: State receives lab report with results of analysis of December 5 submissions.

July 15, 2002 Trial setting — case reset for November 4, 2002.

November 4, 2002: Trial setting — case reset for February 10, 2003.

January 3, 2003: State provides defense with DNA test results from September 12, 2000 lab report after several requests from defense counsel (11 months after discovery order).

January 12, 2003: State designates expert witnesses.

January 31, 2003: Meeting between prosecutors and defense counsel; State turns over bulk of discovery material, including witness list, autopsy report, statements by appellee, lab submission reports, and multiple-page summary prepared by State.

February 13, 2003: State provides defense with copy of lab report from April 17, 2002 (10 months after discovery order).

February 13, 2003: Jury selection begins.

March 3, 2003: Prior to commencement of general voir dire, State discloses that additional evidence (hair from fingernail scraping) is available for testing and asks whether defense wants tests performed.

March 5-7, 2003: Suppression hearing.

March 7, 2003: Defense files motion to suppress.

March 12, 2003: Trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, grants motion to suppress, and orders case to proceed as scheduled.

After the discovery order was issued, defense counsel made repeated requests of the State for the DNA evidence. These requests were made either in person or by telephone until late 2002, at which time the parties began written communication. During pretrial proceedings on March 5, 2003, defense counsel informed the trial court of his intent to file a motion to suppress the State’s DNA evidence due to the untimely disclosure of the evidence. The trial court took up the issue immediately and heard argument and testimony from the prosecutor and defense counsel regarding the discovery process. The court then entered findings that the State’s disclosure of the evidence was untimely and that the State acted willfully in its failure to comply with the discovery order. Specifically, the court found that “the State’s conduct in failing and refusing to provide the Court-ordered discovery in a fair and timely fashion exceeds negligent conduct, and was in fact a willful and egregious effort by the State to defeat defendant’s constitutional rights.” The court then concluded that because the State acted willfully, the DNA evidence should be excluded.

The court of appeals reversed. It first noted that “[e]vidence willfully withheld from disclosure under a discovery order should be excluded from trial,” and defined a willful act as one that is “done voluntarily and intentionally, with the specific intent to disobey the law.” The court found that “the record does not support a finding of intentional disobedience [by the State] of the trial court’s discovery order” and “does not reflect a willful violation of [that] order.” Therefore, the court concluded, the trial court erred in excluding the evidence. We granted review.

First, we agree with both the trial court and the court of appeals on the issue of the timeliness of the State’s disclosure of evidence after the discovery order was granted. The State should have produced the evidence in more timely fashion, especially considering the repeated requests made by defense counsel. Therefore, we are concerned only with the court of appeals’ review of the trial court’s choice of sanctions for the State’s noncompliance.

The trial court’s order excluding the evidence was based on its ultimate finding that the State acted willfully in violating the discovery order. We disagree with this finding. The facts pertaining to the State’s conduct do not demonstrate a willful violation.

The trial court seemed particularly concerned with three situations it believed to be evidence of the willfulness of the State’s conduct. First, the court found that on two separate occasions, the prosecutor, believing that he would no longer be in charge of the case, failed to respond properly to defense requests for discovery and instead worked on other matters. According to the trial court, this “election” not to turn over the evidence and to work on other matters constituted a “willful choice” made by the State. While it is obvious that the prosecutor consciously chose this course of conduct, his actions were “willful” only with respect to the conduct itself. In other words, his choice to engage in conduct that, in effect, would violate the discovery order was voluntary. But we find no evidence in the record that, by his choice, he intended to violate the order or harm the defense. At the hearing, the prosecutor explained that he was told in late November 2002 of his assignment to another court and that he should transfer his files to his successor in the court where this case was pending. He then explained his failure to turn over the requested evidence to the defense:

From the time I was told, “You’re not in this court anymore,” until that moment, I put this case out of my mind because it was no longer at that point my responsibility. It doesn’t go to the responsibility of the district attorney’s office, but I do think it goes towards the issue of intent or bad faith in the failure of providing discovery.

The prosecutor may have been extremely negligent or even reckless with respect to the result of his actions, but we do not believe that this conduct rises to the level of willfulness.

A second example of conduct to which the trial court’s findings referred — one which the court said “weighted] heavy on its finding” of the State’s “willful and egregious effort... to defeat defendant’s constitutional rights” — involved the timing of a fax sent by the State to defense counsel. The record shows that “sometime between Christmas [of 2002] and New Year’s,” defense counsel spoke with the prosecutor about the need for discovery. The prosecutor “informed [defense counsel] that this was the first he knew that the file was still going to be his and he would provide [the defense] with discovery[.]” At that point, defense counsel told the prosecutor that he would be attending a continuing legal education (CLE) course during “the first week of January” and that he needed the evidence “pronto.” The State faxed the discovery information to defense counsel on January 3, 2003, the day defense counsel left for his CLE course. The fact that defense counsel mentioned his future absence from his office to the prosecutor shows the State’s awareness that he would not receive the fax immediately, and the fax did include a letter from the prosecutor apologizing for the “confusion.” The record, however, gives no indication that the timing was anything more than negligence on the part of the State. We do not believe it reasonable to infer that the prosecutor’s decision to fax the information at that particular time (less than a week after learning about the CLE course) was a strategic and purposeful effort to thwart the defense in its preparation of its case. The trial court’s characterization of the event as “gamesmanship at the expense of defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial” is not supported by the record.

A third example that the trial court cited as contributing to its finding of willfulness was the State’s response to the court’s ruling at the conclusion of the hearing on March 7. After both sides finished presenting their arguments, the court indicated that it was not going to exclude the evidence but was going to declare a mistrial:

COURT: [M]y prior feelings of the conduct not being intentional or willing on behalf of the State still stands. However, I do find that the conduct of the State was extremely negligent. I believe that the discovery in this case was not timely done. I think it was not handled properly. I’m not going to exclude the evidence. What I am going to do is I’m going to dismiss the jury in this case, which I do so with regret because we have spent over a month trying to get this process going. ... But we’re going to do that out of an abundance of caution for [the defendant]. ... Now I’ll entertain any thoughts or objections.
DEFENSE: Your Honor, of course, on behalf of the defendant, we do have to object. We’ve selected a jury in this cause. We’re satisfied with that jury. We believe that is denies him due process and also his right to a speedy trial ...; and we would prefer to go ... forward on March 17 as scheduled.
COURT: And I’ll overrule [that objection]. And, for the purposes of the record, I want everybody to know I’m making this motion on my own because I’ve been placed in a position that I have to do that. ... And once again, it is indeed unfortunate that we have to release this panel and waste our time; but that’s what I’m going to do. Any response from the State?
STATE: Judge, we have no arguments at this point.
COURT: Are there any objections to the Court’s ruling?
STATE: Well, Judge, if you ask me specifically — I would rather stand moot [sic]. But if the Court wants me—
COURT: No. I want them.
STATE: Yes, sir, Judge. We are ready for trial. We feel like the motion, as I’ve argued, to suppress is not adequate. And on top of all that, this defendant has not asked for a continuance. ... So, I assume if he hasn’t asked for a continuance that he’s ready to go to trial. ... So, in order to protect the record, I guess, since you have asked me to speak on it, I do object because there’s no continuance. ... He’s said, “I want to go to trial.” ... We’re ready to go. ... And of course, whatever this learned Court decides, we respect that tremendously-
COURT: Okay. If that is the position of the State, then I’m going to grant— I’m going to agree with you. And what we’re going to do is I’m going to adopt all prior findings in the record. The case will proceed to trial March the 17th. All DNA scientific analysis and testing will be excluded from that proceeding, and we’ll move forward March 17th.
STATE: Can I have one other second, Judge?
Judge, of course, this is a little unusual. I’ve never been in this position before; so, I think the proper thing for us to do is to ask you to stay this case for at least a few days to have us the chance to go up on appeal [sic].
COURT: You’ve got between now and March 17th to do that.
And if we’re going to take that approach to it, then the Court also wants additional time to review this file. I want to review the record, and my findings as to the conduct is subject to change as well.
STATE: Judge, I may be missing something here; but are you insinuating that you’re going to punish the State of Texas because we’ve asked you to stay this case because we’re going to appeal?
COURT: Oh, no, sir.
What I’m telling you is if you need more time, then I certainly would like to have more time, too. I’m trying to—
STATE: About what conduct, Your Hon- or, if I may inquire?
COURT: Well, the conduct of the State in discovery, yes, sir.

The trial court pointed to the State’s comments to support its finding of willfulness: “The final comments of the State indicating its desire to exclude any lesser remedy demonstrates the willfulness of the conduct in withholding the evidence and complete disregard of the constitutional rights of the defendant in this case.” We disagree. The State’s objection to the trial court’s ruling, which the court specifically asked to hear, was in no way relevant to the nature of the State’s conduct when it violated discovery order. While avoiding additional delay may have been advantageous to the State, there is no evidence that the prosecutor’s request to proceed was calculated specifically to deny the ap-pellee his constitutional right to a speedy trial. This seems especially true given the fact that, only moments before, the defense also was urging that the trial proceed.

The record demonstrates that the State made what the prosecutor himself described as “grievous error[s] and mistake[s],” but there is no evidence that the prosecutor in this case acted with the specific purpose of disobeying the court’s discovery order, preventing the defense from preparing its case, or denying the defendant his constitutional rights to a speedy trial or effective assistance of counsel.

The trial court erred by finding that the State acted willfully in its noncompliance with the discovery order and by excluding the DNA evidence. The court of appeals’ holding on this issue is correct. The court of appeals also concluded that “[u]nder the circumstances in this case, the appropriate solution to the discovery dispute was a continuance of the trial.” Because the trial court’s ultimate findings characterized the State’s conduct as willful, and as neither party presents argument regarding what remedies are available when the State’s conduct is of a less culpable nature, we express no opinion as to what alternative sanction the trial court should have imposed.

The court of appeals’ judgment is affirmed.

COCHRAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which MEYERS and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.

JOHNSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which PRICE, J., joined.

COCHRAN, J.,

concurring, in which MEYERS, and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.

I join the Court’s opinion. I wish to emphasize that, from my reading of the record, the trial court’s ruling excluding the DNA test results was made solely for the purpose of sanctioning the prosecutor. There was no evidence submitted that, because of the prosecution’s tardiness or sloppiness, the defense could not have its independent expert retest the material or prepare adequately to testify. Apparently, the trial court’s ruling was intended to punish the prosecutor, not to protect the defendant. Had the defendant shown that he was unable to prepare a defense to this scientific evidence in the time remaining before trial, I would be less concerned about the “willfulness” of the prosecutor and more concerned about the due process rights of the defendant. But as it is, the citizens of Jefferson County should not be deprived of otherwise relevant, reliable evidence in a capital murder trial because of the prosecutor’s negligence.

JOHNSON, J.,

dissenting in which PRICE, J., joined.

“Willful: 1. deliberate, voluntary, or intentional; 2. perversely obstinate; unreasonable stubborn or headstrong.... Synonyms: WILLFUL, HEADSTRONG, PERVERSE, WAYWARD refer to one who stubbornly insists upon doing as he pleases. Willful suggests a stubborn persistence in doing what one wishes, esp. in opposition to those whose wishes or commands ought to be respected or obeyed.” (Emphasis in original.) Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1634, Gramercy Books, 1989. “[Wlillful, as we have said, is a word of many meanings, its construction often being influenced by its context.” Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 497, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418 (1943). “[SJtubbornly, obstinately, perversely, [citations omitted]. The word is also employed to characterize a thing done without ground for believing it is lawful [citations omitted], or conduct marked by careless disregard whether or not one has the right so to act [citations omitted].” United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 394, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933).

“In representing a client, a lawyer shall not: (1) neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer; ... As used in this Rule, ‘neglect’ signifies inattention involving a conscious disregard for the responsibilities owed to a client or clients.” Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.01(b)(2), (c) (2003). “A lawyer shall not: ... (d) knowingly disobey, ... an obligation under the standing rules of or a ruling by a tribunal....” Id., Rule 30.4.

The Conduct

The question here is, at what point does “negligent” become “willful”? At what point does extended neglect interfere with the preparation of the defense or raise the constitutional issues of speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel? The crime occurred in 1989, and some DNA was tested. Appellee was indicted in 1991, but the indictment was dismissed in 1994 “in the interest of justice” because the state believed that “the case could not be successfully prosecuted with the evidence in hand at that time.”

The prosecutor in this case submitted DNA samples in March and April 2000 and received the results in September 2000, yet didn’t reveal the results to the defense until January 2003, even after having been ordered to do so by the trial court in January 2002. An additional state submission for DNA testing in December 2001 produced results in April 2002, yet, in spite of an existing court order, the prosecutor did not reveal the results to the defense until February 2003. Just before voir dire began, this same prosecutor revealed that there was additional DNA evidence that he had not yet submitted for testing.

It is undisputed that, during the time that DNA results were available and ordered to be given to the defense, from January 2002 until January 2003, defense counsel repeatedly asked the prosecutor for the DNA results. There was a hearing on the matter in August, to no avail. The District Attorney’s office even held a press conference during which it bragged to the press that it had highly incriminating DNA evidence and a jailhouse confession to another inmate. In spite of all this, the prosecutor continued to withhold that long-available and publicly touted evidence from the defense counsel. It was only in the face of this extended intransigence by the prosecutor that defense counsel informed the trial court that he intended to ask that the withheld DNA results be suppressed.

The prosecutor at issue here had been assigned to the case from the beginning and had been a felony prosecutor in Jefferson County for seventeen-and-a-half years. The case was originally set for August 2002, but was reset “in part” because of the state’s continuing failure to comply with the discovery order. The trial judge retired on December 31, 2002, and was replaced by an experienced criminal practitioner who had practiced in Jefferson County and was familiar with its procedures and practices. On January 18, 2003, the prosecutor told the defense about a hair that was found at the scene but had not yet, 14 years after the crime, been tested. With voir dire set to begin February 13, 2003, the bulk of the ordered discovery was turned over on January 31, 2003, when the state gave the defense its list of 73 potential witnesses, the autopsy report, Brady material, and evidence-collection and laboratory-submission reports. On February 13, 2003, the day the case was called for trial, the prosecutor tendered, for the first time, DNA test results from April 17, 2002, for tests performed on fingernail and hair samples. The results from DNA tests from 1993 were apparently never tendered.

The trial court made several attempts to resolve the matter in a manner fair to both sides, but faced objection by the state for every option except continuing the trial and using the disputed evidence. He first suggested a continuance. Both sides objected, the defense because it required the defendant to choose between a fair trial and a speedy one, and the state because it was ready. The court then offered to declare a mistrial, over defense objection, and reset the case to allow the defense to examine the DNA evidence and obtain expert witnesses if necessary. This would have allowed the state to use the disputed evidence, but at a later date. Both sides objected again, the defense because it had a jury that it was satisfied with, the state because the defendant had not requested a continuance and so should be tried as scheduled. At that point, the judge gave the state what it asked for, a trial as scheduled, but excluded the disputed scientific evidence. The state then filed an interlocutory appeal.

The prosecutor’s excuse for failing to turn over the DNA evidence until January 2003 is that he was told in November 2002 that he had been reassigned to another court and that he should give his files to his successor. This does nothing to explain his failure to promptly turn over the DNA results that he had received in September 2000 and April 2002, and he had had in his possession for twenty-six and six months, respectively. He provides no explanation for his failure to turn over the results from the March 2000 submission immediately after the court ordered diselo-sure in January 2002 or his failure to immediately turn over the results from the December 2001 submission as soon as he received them in April 2002, after the discovery order was entered. He attempts to fault defense counsel, who made repeated requests for the ordered information, his argument seeming to be that defense counsel did not work hard enough to catch the prosecutor in his office and get the re*ports.

As the trial court noted, on two occasions the prosecutor, believing that he would, in the future, no longer be in charge of the case, willfully neglected his duty to that case in the present. Any attorney of record must remain on the case until he is relieved by the court or substitute counsel has taken over the case and must continue to represent the client zealously, even when he or she knows that another attorney will shortly be in charge. We can require no less of an attorney when the client is the state of Texas.

While the trial court initially found, on March 7, 2003, that the prosecutor’s conduct was not willful, the prosecutor continued to assert, in five hearings over four- and-a-half days, that discovery was timely given and attempted to blame his failure to turn over the ordered evidence on the defense. The trial court then stated that its previous finding was “prematurely made” and that “the State’s conduct in failing to provide the Court-ordered discovery in a fair and timely fashion exceeds negligent conduct, and was in fact a willful and egregious effort by the State to defeat the defendant’s constitutional rights.” The only conclusion that I can come to is the same one the trial court reached: the prosecutor neglected this case for so long and in such degree that his neglect became ■willful.

The trial judge chose not use the state’s proposed one-page of findings and conclusion of negligence and instead filed thirteen pages of detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have repeatedly held that we will defer to the judgment of the trial court on findings of fact. We should do so here. The only issue should be whether the remedy of exclusion was appropriate.

The Remedy

The state appeals pursuant to Tex.Code. CRIM. PROC. 44.01(a)(5). In State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), we said that “the purpose of the statute is to permit the pretrial appeal of erroneous legal rulings which eviscerate the State’s ability to prove its case.” We therefore should consider whether the action of the trial court “eviscerated” the state’s case.

The trial court found that the state asserted in a letter to counsel, dated January 3, 2003, with a copy sent to the trial court, that the state had “other evidence to substantiate the allegations in the indictment independent and separate from the complained of DNA analysis and other scientific evidence.” The state tendered a witness list that included 28 law enforcement witnesses, 19 scientific and medical witnesses and 26 civilian witnesses, including Raymond Gross, an inmate who would testify that appellee had confessed the murder to him while in custody. Other evidence included autopsy reports, appellee’s fingerprints on the inside of a window and, presumably, witnesses to sponsor them. As the trial court stated, “this Court concludes by such documents tendered to this Court by the State that exclusion of the DNA analysis evidence does not necessarily result in the termination of the prosecution herein.” Again, we should defer to the trial court in matters involving findings of fact and should not disturb its finding that suppressing the DNA evidence would not eviscerate the state’s case. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the actions of the trial court.

As a practical matter, this appeal has been pending for almost two years. If the state has now complied fully with the court’s discovery order in a timely manner and the appellee has now had time to take whatever steps deemed appropriate in response to the proffered evidence, the trial court may wish to reconsider its suppression order. That is a decision best left to the trial court.

I respectfully dissent.

      . State v. LaRue, 108 S.W.3d 431, 434 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2003) (citing Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Hollowell v. State, 571 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.Cr.App.1978)).

      . Ibid, (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1599 (6th ed.1990)).

      . Id., at 437.

      . Id.., at 435.

      . The state tendered only names, without addresses or other contact information. The stated justification was that the addresses were from the time of the offense in 1989 and therefore were probably not correct. This raises the question of how the state expected to find and subpoena those witnesses if the out-dated addresses were all it had.

      . Those tests were performed with the technology available at the time and are now considered crude and less reliable than tests that are currently available. The results were tendered to the attorney who defended appel-lee on the original indictment, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that they were given to the current attorneys or that those attorneys had access the previous attorney's file.

      . At time of trial, appellee had been in jail for two-and-a-half years.

      . I note that, in the clerk's record, there is a state’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that requests precisely the action by the court that it is now appealing-suppression of the DNA evidence.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM. KELLER, P.J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Ex parte Walter BELL, Jr., Applicant.
    No. AP-75038.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 10, 2004.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 2005.
    William Christian, Austin, for Appellant.

      Rodney Conerly, Assistant District Attorney, Beaumont, Matthew Paul, State’s Attorney, Austin, for State.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In his subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus, applicant claimed that he is mentally retarded. We determined that applicant had met the requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5, and we remanded to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that applicant is mentally retarded. The record supports the trial court’s findings. Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). Accordingly, we grant relief. We reform applicant’s sentence to life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division.

KELLER, P. J., delivered a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by MEYERS, KEASLER, and HERVEY, JJ.

KELLER, P.J.,

concurring and dissenting in which MEYERS, KEASLER, and HERVEY, JJ., joined.

Amicus curiae suggests that a permanent stay of execution — not reformation to a life sentence — is the appropriate remedy for a mentally retarded death-sentenced defendant. It is pointed out that a permanent stay would deny such an inmate the chance of parole, as well as allow authorities to keep him on death row. The preclusion from execution mandated by Atkins v. Virginia does not, it is argued, negate the fact that a jury has found applicant to be a future danger to society. The nature of the relief that this Court decides to grant to such inmates will have a bearing on the safety of general-population inmates, prison staff and, if parole is granted, the public. Reformation of applicant’s sentence to life in this ease renders him immediately eligible for parole. This is not what the jury had in mind for applicant or, apparently, what the Legislature had in mind for men like applicant. Atkins forces us to intrude upon the will of the people of Texas, as expressed by our Legislature, and upon the will of the jury. If there is an option that more closely adheres to those intentions, we should at least consider it.

I am uncertain about the merits of the amicus position, but I believe we ought to address it. I would order briefing and argument on the issue of what is the appropriate relief to be granted under Atkins.

I agree that applicant may not be executed, and I concur in the Court’s opinion to that extent. But before deciding whether to reform applicant’s sentence to life, I would first give full consideration to the alternative remedy suggested by amicus curiae. To the Court’s decision to reform applicant’s sentence to life imprisonment without such a full consideration, I respectfully dissent.

      . 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).

      . He was originally convicted in 1975 for a capital murder committed in 1974. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC., Art. 42.12 § 15(a)(1967)(life sentenced prisoner eligible for parole after twenty years).

      . But see H.B. 236, 77th Leg., R.S. (2001). In the 2001 legislative session, a bill was passed that prohibited execution of the mentally retarded. It was vetoed by the Governor and no such legislation has been enacted in the succeeding sessions.


author: PRICE, J., WOMACK, J.,

text:
    Steven Michael WOODS, a/k/a Halo, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
    No. AP-74430.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
    Dec. 15, 2004.

      William Reagan Wynn, Fort Worth, for Appellant.
    Kathleen A. Walsh, Asst. District Attorney, Denton, Matthew Paul, State’s Attorney, Austin, for State.
   OPINION

PRICE, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court,

in which KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, HOLCOMB, and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.

In August 2002, a Denton County jury convicted the appellant, Steven Michael Woods, of killing Ronald Whitehead and Bethena Brosz. Pursuant to 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 court sentenced the appellant to death. Direct appeal to this Court is automatic. The appellant raises seventeen points of error challenging his conviction and sentence. We will affirm.

I. VOIR DIRE

In points of error fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen, the appellant argues that the trial court improperly restricted his questioning of prospective jurors during voir dire. He contends that, as a result, he was unable to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.

The trial court has broad discretion over the jury selection process. Voir dire could go on indefinitely if the trial court did not have the ability to impose reasonable limits on it. A trial court abuses its discretion only when it prohibits a proper question about a proper area of inquiry. A question is proper if it seeks to discover a juror’s views on an issue applicable to the case. However, an otherwise proper question is impermissible if it attempts to commit the juror to a particular verdict based on particular facts. A voir dire question that is so vague or broad in nature as to constitute a global fishing expedition is also improper and may be prevented by the trial court.

A. Commitment Question

The appellant asserts in point of error fifteen that the trial court improperly limited his voir dire questioning of veni-re member Kerri Denise Wyrick during the following exchange:

Q. And it mentions on there if you find sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed. It says “sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances.” So do you understand that to mean that even one mitigating circumstance, if it’s sufficient, is enough to award a life penalty instead of a death penalty?
A. I understand.
Q. Could you do that even if you’d already found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a capital murder, you’d found special issue number 1, that the State proved that beyond a reasonable doubt, that you found on special issue number 2 that the State proved that beyond a reasonable doubt? If the State did all that, could you still support and vote for a life punishment if you found a sufficient mitigating circumstance?
[PROSECUTOR]: I object to contracting.
THE COURT: Sustained, the way it’s phrased.
Q. Would you be able to follow the law as to special issue number 3 if you found even one sufficient mitigating circumstance?
A. Yes.

Defense counsel did not exercise a challenge for cause or a peremptory challenge against Wyrick, and she was seated on the jury.

The appellant argues that the question was proper because it sought to discover Wyrick’s views on an issue applicable to the case, that is, whether she could fairly consider the mitigation special issue even if the jury had already answered yes to the future dangerousness and anti-parties special issues. The trial court sustained the State’s objection that it was an improper commitment question. A commitment question can be proper or improper, depending on whether the question leads to a valid challenge for cause. For a commitment question to be proper, one of the possible answers to that question must give rise to a valid challenge for cause. If Wyrick had answered the question “no,” then she would have been challengeable for cause. Thus, the trial court erred in refusing to allow the question to be asked.

The appropriate standard of harm is to disregard the error unless a substantial right has been affected. A substantial right is affected when the error has a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.

The trial court’s denial of a proper question in this case did not have a substantial or injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict because defense counsel was able to ask Wyrick essentially the same question. After the trial court sustained the State’s objection, defense counsel immediately asked her, “Would you be able to follow the law as to special issue number 3 if you found even one sufficient mitigating circumstance?” and she replied, “Yes.” Point of error fifteen is overruled.

B. Improper Questions

The appellant complains in point of error sixteen that the trial court prevented him from asking venire member Michael Rudolf Ziegler the following question: “Could you be fair and impartial in a murder case where the people killed were under 25 years of age?” The prosecutor objected that the question was “contracting,” and the trial court sustained the objection. Defense counsel exercised a peremptory strike against Ziegler.

The appellant similarly asserts in point of error seventeen that the trial court improperly limited his voir dire questioning of venire member Jerry Linsley during the following exchange:

Q. Can you be impartial in this case if the victims were young?
[PROSECUTOR]: Objection, contracting.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Can you consider the life penalty where the victims were young?
[PROSECUTOR]: Objection, contracting. He’s trying to get him to commit to a certain set of facts, being that the victims were young.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Can you be impartial if one of the victims is a young woman?
[PROSECUTOR]: Objection. Contracting again.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Can you consider the life penalty if a victim was a young woman?
[PROSECUTOR]: Objection. Contracting.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Defense counsel then said that he wanted to ask the same four questions of every venire member. He asked the trial court for a running objection with regard to all subsequent jurors. The trial court replied: ‘Well, I’ve sustained the objection on this juror, and if the exact same question were asked of subsequent jurors, the Court’s ruling would be the same.” Defense counsel did not exercise a challenge for cause or a peremptory strike against Linsley, and he was seated on the jury.

The questions that the appellant sought to ask Ziegler, Linsley, and the other veni-re members in this case are similar to the questions that we held to be improper in Barajas v. State} In Barajas, defense counsel desired to ask whether venire members could be impartial in an indecency case involving a victim who was eight to ten years old or, in the alternative, a victim who was nine years old. Defense counsel also sought to ask whether venire members could consider probation in a case involving a victim who was eight to ten years old. We held in Barajas that these questions constituted global fishing expeditions and the trial court was within its discretion to prevent defense counsel from asking them. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing a similar fishing expedition in the instant case. Points of error sixteen and seventeen are overruled.

II. LIMITED CROSS-EXAMINATION

In points of error seven and eight, the appellant argues that the trial court improperly prevented him from cross-examining the State’s witness Brian Young about his prison sentence and his prospects for parole. At the time of the appellant’s trial, Young was serving a sentence for aggravated assault. Prior to calling Young to testify, the prosecutor made an oral motion in limine seeking to bar defense counsel from questioning Young about the fact that he was currently in custody and about the length of his sentence. The trial court granted the motion in limine and permitted defense counsel to question Young about the specifics of his conviction outside the presence of the jury for purposes of the record. In response to defense counsel’s questions, Young testified that he had served nearly eight months of his two-year sentence and that he was aware of the possibility that he could be placed on parole, but that no one promised him anything in exchange for his testimony. When defense counsel asked Young if he expected “some kind of favorable treatment or good time” in exchange for his testimony, he responded: “From my understanding, my case does not merit good time because it is an aggravated charge, and as for the rest of that, I have absolutely no idea.” The following exchange took place after defense counsel finished questioning Young:

THE COURT: Is it your position that you intend to try to ask those questions in front of the jury?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: It is, Judge.
THE COURT: Is there an objection from the State?
[PROSECUTOR]: We object, Your Honor. Irrelevant, improper impeachment under 609, and there are no offers or agreements in exchange for his testimony.
THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection. The record has been made.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, ma’am.

The appellant argues on appeal that the limitation on his cross-examination of Young violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and Rule 613(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.

The proponent of evidence to show bias must show that the evidence is relevant. The proponent does this by demonstrating that a nexus, or logical connection, exists between the witness’s testimony and the witness’s potential motive to testify in favor of the other party. We have found a nexus when a witness has been indicted or is serving a period of community supervision. In such cases, the witness is placed in a vulnerable position and may have a motive to testify in favor of the State.

In this case, the appellant asked Young if he expected favorable treatment or good time in exchange for his testimony. Young said that he was ineligible for good time and that he had no idea about other potential favorable treatment. And, in fact, Young was ineligible for good time. There was no indication that Young had the expectation that he would be rewarded for testimony favorable to the State or punished for testimony that was unfavorable to the State. The appellant’s offer of proof did not establish a nexus between Young’s testimony and his prison sentence.

Points of error seven and eight are overruled.

III. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE

In points of error nine, ten, eleven, and twelve, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of David Samuelson and Staci Schwartz. The appellant specifically complains that these two witnesses improperly testified about statements made to them by the appellant’s co-defendant, Marcus Rhodes. The appellant argues that the trial court improperly admitted this evidence under the “statement against interest” exception to the hearsay rule in Texas Rule of Evidence 803(24). He also asserts that the admission of this evidence violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

The State presented evidence that the appellant and Rhodes shot Ronald Whitehead and Bethena Brosz in a secluded area in The Colony, Texas, in the early morning hours of May 2, 2001. The appellant, Rhodes, Whitehead, Samuelson, and Schwartz all knew each other from Insomnia, a coffee shop they frequented in downtown Dallas. Samuelson testified that he had talked to Rhodes at Insomnia on the evening of May 1, and Rhodes stated that “he had a job" to do” for the appellant that night and that he did not want to do it. Schwartz testified that she had had a conversation with Rhodes at Insomnia on the afternoon of May 2, during which Rhodes stated that he and the appellant had used Brosz’s credit card to make an online purchase of tickets to an anime festival. Rhodes told Schwartz that they had attempted to make Samuelson look responsible for the murders by buying the tickets in his name and having them sent to his house.

A. Rule of Evidence 803(24)

In order for a declaration against interest to be admissible under Rule 803(24), the statement must be self-inculpatory with corroborating circumstances' to indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. The appellant does not assert that Rhodes’s statements were insufficiently self-inculpatory. He instead argues that there was insufficient corroboration of Rhodes’s statements. The corroboration must clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

A number of factors are relevant to this inquiry: (1) whether the guilt of the declarant is inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant; (2) whether the declarant was so situated that he might have committed the crime; (3) the timing of the declaration; (4) the spontaneity of the declaration; (5) the relationship between the declarant and the party to whom the statement was made; and (6) the existence of independent corroborative facts. The first two factors, as the Austin Court of Appeals has noted, logically apply only when the defendant is the proponent of the statement against interest that tends to exculpate the defendant. When the statement is offered by the State to inculpate the defendant, as in the case before us, the first two factors are not relevant.

Rhodes spontaneously made the statements to Samuelson and Schwartz, his acquaintances from Insomnia who knew Whitehead but were not connected to the commission of the murders. He made the statement to Samuelson prior to the commission of the murders. He made the statement to Schwartz not long after the commission of the murders. These were “street corner” statements that Rhodes made to his friends without any motive to shift blame to another or minimize his own involvement in the murders. Thus, the timing and spontaneity of the statements tend to establish their reliability.

The State also presented evidence of independent corroborative facts that verified the reliability of Rhodes’s statements to Samuelson and Schwartz. Samuelson testified that he received a denied credit card charge for admission to an anime festival in the mail, and that the charge was in Brosz’s name. The murders took place on the night that Rhodes said he had a job for the appellant to do.

The physical evidence and the appellant’s own admissions demonstrate that the appellant and Rhodes acted in concert throughout the commission of the offense. The testimony of Samuelson and Schwartz was admissible under Rule 803(24) because there were sufficient corroborating circumstances to indicate the trustworthiness of Rhodes’s statements.

B. Confrontation Clause

We next turn to the appellant’s argument that the testimony of Samuelson and Schwartz was inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. The threshold question is whether Rhodes’s statements were testimonial or non-testimonial in nature. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford, hearsay statements were admissible for purposes of the Confrontation Clause if they possessed adequate “in-dicia of reliability.” The Supreme Court in Crawford, however, drew a distinction between testimonial and non-testimonial statements. The Supreme Court declined to spell out a comprehensive definition of testimonial, but it stated that the term “applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations.” The Supreme Court held that “[wjhere testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution-actually prescribes: Confrontation.”

Rhodes’s statements to Samuelson and Schwartz do not fall within the categories of testimonial evidence described in Crawford. They were casual remarks that he spontaneously made to acquaintances. Rhodes’s statements were non-testimonial in nature; thus, the new rule articulated in Crawford is not applicable in this case. Points of error nine, ten, eleven, and twelve are overruled.

IV. JURY CHARGE

In point of error thirteen, the appellant argues that the trial court erred by submitting part of the Geesa instruction in its charge to the jury during the guilt phase of the trial. We held in Geesa that trial courts must define reasonable doubt in their jury charges and mandated the following six paragraph jury instruction:

[1] All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial. The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.
[2] The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty and it must do so by proving each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must acquit the defendant.
[3] It is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all “reasonable doubt” concerning the defendant’s guilt.
[4] A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs.
[5] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs.
[6] In the event you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt after considering all the evidence before you and these instructions, you will acquit him and say by your verdict “Not guilty.”

In Paulson v. State, we overruled the portion of Geesa that required trial courts to instruct juries on the definition of reasonable doubt. The appellant argues that the trial court’s submission of a portion of the Geesa instruction was reversible error under Paulson. In this case, the trial court submitted paragraphs [1], [2], [3], and [6] of the Geesa instruction. It did not submit paragraphs [4] and [5]. On appeal, the appellant challenges only the trial court’s inclusion of paragraph [3]. He acknowledges that he did not object to the inclusion of paragraph [3] at trial, but argues that the alleged error caused him egregious harm, necessitating reversal under Almanza v. State,

We held in Paulson that “the better practice is to give no definition of reasonable doubt at all to the jury.” We specifically criticized paragraphs [4] and [5] of the Geesa instruction as attempting to define reasonable doubt. The instruction in the instant case did not contain these paragraphs. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by including paragraph [3] of the Geesa instruction in the jury charge at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. Point of error thirteen is overruled.

In point of error fourteen, the appellant argues that the trial court erred by submitting a definition of reasonable doubt in its charge to the jury during the punishment phase. The appellant specifically complains about the following portions of the punishment charge:

It is not required that the State prove Special Issue No. 1 beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the State’s proof excludes all reasonable doubt concerning the defendant.
It is not required that the State prove Special Issue No. 2 beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the State’s proof excludes all reasonable doubt concerning the defendant.

The appellant again complains of the trial court’s use of the language contained in paragraph [3] of the Geesa instruction. He again acknowledges that he did not object to the inclusion of this paragraph, but argues that the alleged error caused him egregious harm. The appellant’s argument fails for the same reasons expressed in point of error thirteen. Point of error fourteen is overruled.

Y. ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENT

In his sixth point of error, the appellant complains of erroneously admitted evidence during the punishment phase of his trial. He challenges the admission of the audio-taped statement that he gave to a California detective regarding his involvement in an uncharged offense. The statement pertained to the murder of Beau Sanders, the manager of Insomnia whose body was discovered in the desert area located southwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The appellant asserts that the statement was inadmissible because it was not taken in compliance with the dictates of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22.

Article 38.22, Section 3(a)(2) provides that no oral statement of an accused made as a result of custodial interrogation shall be admissible against him in a criminal proceeding unless, prior to the statement but during the recording, he is given the warning in Section 2(a) and he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, waives the rights set out in the warning. The appellant must be warned of the following rights under Section 2(a):

(1) he has the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all and that any statement he makes may be used against him at his trial;
(2) any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him in court;
(3) he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning;
(4) if he is unable to employ a lawyer, he has the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise him prior to and during any questioning; and
(5) he has the right to terminate the interview at any time.

Strict compliance with all portions of Section 3(a) is required. The appellant specifically contends that his statement was inadmissible because the California detective failed to inform him that he had the right to terminate the interview at any time.

Detective Brad Toms of the San Bernar-dino County Sheriffs Department questioned the appellant at the Denton County Jail in January 2002. The purpose of the interview was to find out information about the disappearance of Sanders, who had been missing since March 2001. Prior to taking the appellant’s statement, Toms read him his rights from a card issued by the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department. He advised the appellant that he had the right to remain silent, that any statement he made could be used against him, that he had a right to a lawyer, and that if he was unable to employ a lawyer that one would be appointed for him. He did not advise the appellant that he had a right to terminate the interview at any time.

. In his statement, ■ the appellant told Toms that Sanders wanted to go to California and that Rhodes, Jeremy Stark, and Matthew Potts gave him a ride. The appellant knew that Rhodes and Stark actually planned to kill Sanders. The appellant was going to accompany them on the trip, but his girlfriend convinced him not to go. He lent them his car instead. He later learned that they shot and killed Sanders in the desert. Rhodes provided the guns and was present at the time of the murder, but only Stark and Potts shot Sanders. When they returned to Texas, they were in possession of Sanders’s personal items, including clothing, a hat, compact discs, and a compact disc case, which they divided up among themselves. The appellant denied that he ordered a “hit” on Sanders. He said that Sanders was his friend and that he felt bad about what happened to him. He did not do anything to prevent the murder, and he did not go to the police because he was afraid of Rhodes and Stark.

The appellant objected to the admission of the statement under Article 38.22. The trial court overruled the appellant’s objection and admitted the statement. The State concedes on appeal that the appellant’s statement was not taken in compliance with the dictates of Article 38.22. The State argues that the appellant’s statement was nevertheless admissible under Article 38.22, Section 3(c), which provides as follows:

Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to any statement which contains assertions of facts or circumstances that are found to be true and which conduce to establish the guilt of the accused, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property or the instrument with which he states the offense was committed.

Under the exception set out in Section 3(c), oral statements asserting facts or circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused are admissible if, at the time they were made, they contained assertions unknown by law enforcement but later corroborated. Such oral statements need only circumstantially demonstrate the defendant’s guilt. Furthermore, if such an oral statement contains even a single assertion of fact found to be true and conducive to establishing the defendant’s guilt, then the statement is admissible in its entirety.

The State asserts that the appellant’s statement is admissible under the Section 3(c) exception because the police did not know where to find Sanders’s body until the appellant told them. The State further asserts that the police did not know that Sanders was shot with Rhodes’s .380 caliber pistol until the appellant gave his statement. The State’s assertions, however, are not clearly supported by the record. During the interview, Toms told the appellant that Potts was already in custody in California for Sanders’s murder and that they had a “nice long talk” with him resulting in “thirteen pages of communication.” Toms also stated that Potts told police exactly what happened and how it happened.

Toms described the search for and recovery of Sanders’s body during his trial testimony:

Q. Okay. During the course of your investigation into the disappearance or missing Beau Sanders, did you ultimately end up going and searching a particular area of your county?
A. Yes sir, we did.
Q. What area was that?
A. It’s a cement road. It’s an area south of — or sorry, southwest of Las Vegas, approximately 45 minutes southwest of Las Vegas.
Q. And what is in this area? What kind of terrain is it?
A. Desert.
Q. Desert for as far as—
A. Open desert.
Q. So to search this type of area, what did ya’ll do?
A. What we did was have search and rescue. We contacted volunteers and asked them to come out and conduct a grid search of a specific area that we had information that Beau Sanders’[s] body would be located in.
Q. How many times did you go and search this area, the desert area?
A. Two times.
Q. Were you successful or did you find anything the first time you went out there?
A. The first time we were not successful. We did not find anything at all.
Q. Tell the jury what happened the second time.
A. I actually wasn’t present during the search, but the second search, they went out and located evidence that would— that has now since been proven to be the body of Beau Sanders.
Q. What kind of evidence did the searchers find?
A. We found clothing, skeletal remains, and gun evidence, fired cartridge casings.
Q. What type of gun evidence did you find?
A. It was a .380 fired cartridge casing.
Q. After the remains were found and identified, did you and your team come to Texas to talk to witnesses to investigate the matter?
A. Actually, I came to Texas prior to the remains being found.
Q. And while you were here in Texas, did you have an opportunity to speak with Steven Michael Woods?
A. Yes sir, I did.

It is unclear from the record exactly what the police knew about Sanders’s murder before they interviewed the appellant. Toms told the appellant during the interview that they had already talked to Potts and that he told them exactly what had happened and how it happened. It appears that the police had already searched the desert once based on information they received, presumably from Potts, about where Sanders’s body was located. When Toms asked the appellant if he knew where the murder took place, he said they “pulled off the road” in the “Mojave Reserve.” We cannot discern from the record whether the appellant’s description was any more detailed than the one that Potts may have given. Although Sanders’s body was not found until after the appellant’s statement, it appears that the police generally knew where to look for the body before the appellant’s statement.

The State further notes in its brief on appeal that the appellant also told Detective Toms about the property from the crime scene taken by Rhodes, Stark, and Potts and that they had split up the property among themselves. The State concedes, however, that except for the fact that Mrs. Sanders, the victim’s mother, identified a green bag that belonged to Beau in a photograph of items in the trunk of Marcus Rhodes’s car, there is no indication in the record where and when the rest of the property was recovered. Thus, even if the police did not know where to find Sanders’s belongings until the appellant gave his statement, the record does not indicate whether the appellant’s assertions were later corroborated.

The appellant’s statement was not taken in strict compliance with Article 38.22 and the State has not clearly established an exception under Section 3(c). The trial court erred in admitting the statement. The erroneous admission of the appellant’s statement amounts to non-constitutional error. The appropriate standard of harm is to disregard the error unless a substantial right has been affected. A substantial right is affected when the error has a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.

Other witnesses testified that the appellant was more involved in Sanders’s murder than he told Toms in his statement. Michael Cavin testified that he and the appellant were staying at the apartment of a mutual friend in March 2001. Cavin observed the appellant, Stark, Rhodes, and Potts planning Sanders’s murder at that time. The appellant told Cavin that he was taking Sanders out to California to Ml him and that he would kill Cavin if he told anybody. Cavin was at Insomnia with the group on the night they were going to leave for California. Rhodes, Stark, Potts, and Sanders left in the appellant’s car and the appellant stayed behind in Dallas. A day or two later, the appellant woke Cavin at 3:00 a.m., pointed a 12-gauge shotgun in his face, and asked him if he was still going to tell anybody. After the murder, the appellant, Rhodes, Stark, and Potts divided up Sanders’s personal items amongst themselves.

In addition, Stephen Price testified that he encountered the appellant when the appellant was in hiding in California after he committed the murders of Whitehead and Brosz. The appellant told Price that he murdered Whitehead because he “was a threat to go to the police” about the murder of Sanders that Rhodes and “two other people” committed in California.

The testimony of Cavin and Price was stronger evidence of future dangerousness than the appellant’s statement. In his statement, the appellant alleged only minimal participation and showed some remorse about Sanders’s death. According to Cavin and Price, however, the appellant plotted Sanders’s death and killed Whitehead in order to prevent him from telling the police what he knew about Sanders’s murder.

And the appellant’s involvement in Sanders’s murder was not the only evidence of future dangerousness. The evidence showed that, in the weeks leading up to the murders of Whitehead and Brosz, the appellant planned to steal money from a clothing store and to Ml a woman named Deborah Handley during a drug transaction. The appellant also got into a fight with another inmate wMe incarcerated in the Denton County Jail awaiting trial. As a juvenile, he made a homemade bomb and committed the offense of “criminal sexual conduct.” Finally, the State introduced a recorded telephone call that the appellant made the night before the punishment phase in his capital trial began. The appellant tried to call Detective Toms, who was out of the office, and instead spoke to Detective Boldt and offered to give more information about to Sanders’s murder. The State argued during closing that this phone call was evidence that the appellant was “still trying to manipulate people” and that he Mew he was “going down” so he was “going to try to take the rest of his group with him.” Given all of this evidence, coupled with the violent and premeditated murders of Whitehead and Brosz, it is unlikely that the appellant’s statement had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict at punishment. Point of error six is overruled.

VI. TEXAS DEATH-PENALTY STATUTE

The appellant argues his first three points of error together. In his first point of error, he asserts that the Texas death-penalty statute is unconstitutional because it places the burden of proving the mitigation special issue on the appellant. In his second point of error, he contends that the trial court erroneously overruled his motion to hold the Texas death-penalty statute unconstitutional on this basis. In his third point of error, he argues that the trial court should have instructed the jury that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigation issue should be answered in the negative. The appellant relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey, and Ring v. Arizona to support his claims. We have previously rejected such arguments.

In his post-submission brief, the appellant argues that Blakely v. Washington supports , his claims and is contrary to our cases interpreting Apprendi and Ring. In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Blakely, the Supreme Court defined the term statutory maximum for purposes of an Apprendi analysis. It held that the statutory maximum

is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant “statutory maximum” is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. When a judge inflicts punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts “which the law makes essential to the punishment,” and the judge exceeds his proper authority.

The appellant argues that this language in Blakely means that the State must prove a negative answer to the mitigation special issue beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the trial judge to impose a sentence of death. More specifically, he argues that after a jury finds a defendant guilty of capital murder and answers the future dangerousness special issue “yes,” the maximum sentence that can be imposed is a life sentence. Then he argues that the only way death can be imposed is after an additional finding: The jury must answer “no” to the mitigation special issue. As a result, he claims that the statutory maximum, in the absence of the negative mitigation finding, is life imprisonment.

We disagree with the appellant’s conclusion. In Resendiz, we rejected the argument that the State bears the burden of proving a negative answer to the mitigation special issue. We reached this conclusion, in that case, because the statutory maximum for capital murder is fixed at death. Blakely does not affect this holding.

In Blakely, Ring, and Aprendí, a trial judge made findings that increased the defendants’ sentences beyond the statutory maximum. The Supreme Court held in these cases that a finding, other than a prior conviction, that increases the defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum statutory punishment must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 37.071 satisfies these requirements.

Under Article 37.071, the jury makes the findings. The future dangerousness special issue and the parties special issue, when it applies, must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. The mitigation special issue has the potential to reduce the appellant’s sentence, not increase it. As a result, the State need not prove a negative answer beyond a reasonable doubt. Points of error one, two, and three are overruled.

In his fourth point of error, the appellant attacks the Texas death-penalty statute on the grounds that the mitigation special issue gives the jury unfettered discretion and permits the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty. We have previously rejected such arguments. Point of error four is overruled.

In his fifth point of error, the appellant complains that the Texas death-penalty statute is unconstitutional because the mitigation instruction sends the same “mixed signals” to jurors as the court-made nullification instruction given to the jury in Penry v. Johnson (Penry II). He asserts that the statutory mitigation instruction sends mixed signals because it is unclear as to the burden of proof.

In Hall v. State, we held that the mitigation instruction contained in the Texas death-penalty statute is a statutory codification of the dictates handed down by the United States Supreme Court in Pem'y v. Lynaugh (Penry I ). We have previously upheld the constitutionality of this provision. The Supreme Court also commented on the difference between the statutory mitigation instruction and the court-made nullification instruction in Penry II:

A clearly drafted catchall instruction on mitigating evidence also might have complied with Penry I. Texas’ current capital sentencing scheme (revised after Penry’s second trial and sentencing) provides a helpful frame of reference ... Penry’s counsel, while not conceding the issue, admitted that he “would have a tough time saying that [Penry I ] was not complied with under the new Texas procedure.” (citation omitted). At the very least, the brevity and clarity of this instruction highlight the confusing nature of the supplemental instruction actually given, and indicate that the trial court had adequate alternatives available to it as it drafted the instructions for Penry’s trial.

The appellant has not convinced us that the statutory mitigation instruction in its present form is unconstitutional. Point of error five is overruled.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

WOMACK, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

WOMACK, J.,

dissenting.

I do not agree with the court’s decision that the error of admitting the appellant’s confession to committing the murder of Beau Sanders was harmless.

The court says it is unlikely that the erroneously admitted confession had a substantial and injurious effect on the punishment verdict. Ante, at 120.

The punishment stage of a capital trial will happen after a defendant has been found guilty of committing a capital crime. The question for the jury is whether to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant probably will commit more criminal acts of violence that will constitute a danger to society. A defendant’s confession that he already has committed a second murder is a very powerful piece of evidence. I could not find it unlikely that the erroneous admission of such evidence had no substantial effect on the jury’s decision.

The court says, first, that Michael Cavin and Stephen Price testified that the appellant was involved in the murder of Sanders, and that he was involved to a greater degree than he confessed. Id., at 119. But this ignores the difference between a confession and the testimony of those individuals. A confession is a statement against penal interest, and it is viewed as reliable. The testimony of Cavin and Price, without the confession, would have carried less weight.

The court says that there was other evidence at the punishment stage. The appellant “planned” to commit two other crimes: stealing money from a clothing store and killing a woman during a drug transaction. Id., at 119. But plans are not deeds.

The court adds to the list of evidence the appellant’s offer to give the police more information about Sanders’s murder. The court seems to accept the State’s argument that this was evidence of bad character. Until now, I had thought it would be recognized by every law-abiding person, to say nothing of a prosecutor and a court, that helping the investigation of a murder was a good thing and that “omerta” was the ethic of organized crime.

I would reverse the sentence of death and remand the case for another hearing on punishment.

      . Tex Pen.Code § 19.03(a).

      . Tex Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(g).

      . Id., at § 2(h).

      . Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 755-56 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 986, 124 S.Ct. 511, 157 L.Ed.2d 378 (2003); Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 38-39 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

      . Ibid.

      . Ibid.

      . Ibid.

      . Ibid.; Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).

      . Sells, 121 S.W.3d at 756; Barajas, 93 S.W.3d at 39.

      . Tex Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(e)(1).

      . We understand the prosecutor’s "contracting” objection to mean that the question improperly attempted to commit Wyrick to a particular verdict based on particular facts.

      . Lydia v. State, 109 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (citing Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 181).

      . Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182.

      . TexCode Crim. Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(pro-viding that the defense may challenge a veni-reperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor”).

      . Tex R Apr. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)).

      . King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

      . 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

      . Id., at 38.

      . Ibid.

      . Id., at 41-42.

      . Carpenter v. State, 979 S.W.2d 633, 634 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

      . Maxwell v. State, 48 S.W.3d 196, 199 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) ("Evidence that a witness whom the State calls is subject to a criminal charge, or is on probation, can be used to show the bias or interest of the witness in helping the State”) (quoting Moreno v. State, 22 S.W.3d 482, 485-86 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)).

      . See Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.145(d) ("An inmate serving a sentence for an offense described by Section 3g(a)(l)(A), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), or (H), Article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, or for an offense for which the judgment contains an affirmative finding under Section 3g(a)(2) of that article, is not eligible for release on parole until the inmate's actual calendar time served, without consideration of good conduct time, equals one-half of the sentence or 30 calendar years, whichever is less, but in no event is the inmate eligible for release on parole in less than two calendar years”).

      . Whitehead was dead when emergency personnel arrived at the scene at 6:55 a.m. Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital.

      . Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

      . Ibid., (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)).

      . Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749.

      . See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd).

      . Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

      . Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).

      . 124 S.Ct. at 1374.

      . Ibid.

      . Ibid.

      . See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.”); see also United States v. Manfre, 368 F.3d 832, 838 n. 1 (8th Cir.2004) (noting comments made to loved ones or acquaintances are not the kind of memorialized, judicial-process-created evidence of which Crawford speaks); see also People v. Cervantes, 118 Cal.App.4th 162, 174, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 (App.2d Dist.2004) (holding that co-defendant's statement to a neighbor that he did not reasonably anticipate would be used at trial was non-testimonial in nature).

        .Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

      . Ibid.

      . 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

      . The trial court submitted paragraphs [1], [2], [3], and [6] verbatim with one exception. The last line of paragraph [1] was shortened to read as follows: "The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant.”

      . 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).

      . Id., at 573.

      . Id., at 572.

      . Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171.

      . Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. .38.22, § 3(e); Nonn v. State, 117 S.W.3d 874, 879 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183, 185 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

      . Detectives Smith, Garza, and Little were also present during the interview.

      . Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 400 (Tex. Crim.App.1999).

      . Id., at 400-01.

      . Id., at 401.

      . Citation omitted.

      . Nonn, 117 S.W.3d at 881.

      . Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b).

      . Nonn, 117 S.W.3d at 881.

      . Nonn, 117 S.W.3d at 881.

      . 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

      . 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).

      . Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 54 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Moore v. State, 935 S.W.2d 124, 126-28 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

      . Oral argument in this case was heard on June 23, 2004. The United States Supreme Court delivered Blakely v. Washington, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), on which the appellant’s post-submission brief relies, on June 24, 2004.

      . Ibid.

      . Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348.

      . Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2537 (citations omitted). ■

      . Resendiz, 112 S.W.3d at 550.

        .Ibid.

      . The future dangerousness special issue asks the jury to decide "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(b)(1).

      . The parties special issue asks the jury to decide “in cases in which the jury charge at the guilt or innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02, Penal Code, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.” Id., at art. 37.071, § 2(b)(2).

      . Id., at art. 37.071, § 2(c).

      . The mitigation special issue asks the jury to decide “[wjhether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed.” Id., at art. 37.071, § 2(e)(1).

      . Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 54 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Moore v. State, 935 S.W.2d 124, 126-28 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

      . 532 U.S. 782, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001).

      . 67 S.W.3d 870, 877 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

      . 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989).

      . Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 790 (Tex.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2836, 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004); Shannon v. State, 942 S.W.2d 591, 598 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

      . 121 S.Ct. at 1923-24.

      . Jones, 119 S.W.3d at 790.


author: HERVEY, J.,

text:
    EX PARTE David Max BURGESS, Applicant.
    No. AP-74950.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 15, 2004.
    John G. Tatum, Richardson, for Appellant.
    Laura Anne Coats, Asst. District Attorney, Dallas, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.
   OPINION

HERVEY, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court

in which KELLER, PJ., MEYERS, PRICE, WOMACK, KEASLER, HOLCOMB and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.

Applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery in the 90th District Court of Stephens County, where his deferred-adjudication community supervision for that offense had been transferred from the 194th District Court of Dallas County. See Article 42.12, § 10(b), Tex.Code CRim. PROC. Applicant filed an Article 11.07, Tex. Code CRim. PRoa, habeas corpus application with the Dallas County District Clerk for assignment to the 194th District Court of Dallas County, which recommended that habeas corpus relief be denied based on its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Dallas County District Clerk forwarded the habeas record to this Court. We filed and set this case to address the procedure to follow when, as here, an applicant files an Article 11.07 habeas corpus application with the district clerk of a county other than the county of conviction. We will dismiss applicant’s writ of habeas corpus.

This Court last addressed the issue in Ex parte Alexander, 861 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). At that time, former Article 11.07, Section 2(b), in relevant part, stated:

[Wjhenever a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed after final conviction in a felony case, the clerk shall transfer or assign it to the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained.

(Emphasis supplied).

Alexander decided that this passage referred to a district clerk of a specific county and that this district clerk “is the clerk of the court for all the district courts in that county.” Alexander, 861 S.W.2d at 922. Alexander also decided that, under a “plain reading” of Section 2, “when an application is presented to a district clerk in a county in which the challenged conviction was not entered, the clerk shall transfer the application to the court in which the challenged conviction was obtained.” Id. (emphasis in original).

In 1999, the Legislature amended this portion of Article 11.07 to delete the “transfer” language. Current Article 11.07, Section 3(b), (which, at the time of Alexander, was section 2(b)), in relevant part, states:

An application for writ of habeas corpus filed after final conviction in a felony case ... must be filed with the clerk of the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained, and the clerk shall assign the application to that court.

(Emphasis supplied).

A “plain reading” of Section 3(b) bespeaks a legislative intent to no longer require a district clerk to transfer an Article 11.07 habeas corpus application “to the court in which the challenged conviction was obtained” when the application “is presented to a district clerk in a county in which the challenged conviction was not entered.” Section 3(b) left intact the other holding in Alexander that “when an application is presented to the district clerk of the county in which the challenged conviction was entered, the clerk shall assign the application to the appropriate court.” Alexander, 861 S.W.2d at 922 (emphasis in original).

The Legislature accomplished this by deleting the “transfer” language and retaining the “assign” language from former Article 11.07, Section 2(b). Any other interpretation of Section 3(b), would render the 1999 legislative amendment to Article 11.07 meaningless. See Ex parte Trahan, 591 S.W.2d 837, 842 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (in construing a statutory amendment, courts must presume that the Legislature intended to change the law, and courts should construe the amendment in a way that gives effect to the change rather than in a way that renders the amendment useless).

We dismiss applicant’s habeas corpus application.

JOHNSON, J., concurred.

      . Applicant filed an earlier Article 11.07 habe-as corpus application in Dallas County. The Dallas County District Clerk forwarded that application to this Court, which dismissed the application without stating the reasons for doing so.

      . See Act of June 16, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 789, § 1, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 1974.

      . Alexander also decided that "when an application is presented to the district clerk of the county in which the challenged conviction was entered, the clerk shall assign the application to the appropriate district court.” Alexander, 861 S.W.2d at 922 (emphasis in original).

        .See Act of June 18, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 580, § 2, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 3119, 3120.