reasoning that evidence that the appellant had “broke[n] into the home of and viciously attacked and murdered” an elderly woman supported a finding of future dangerousness
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that evidence that the appellant had “broke[n] into the home of and viciously attacked and murdered” an elderly woman supported a finding of future dangerousness
- AAlthough we are inclined to agree with the State that we can dispose of this point of error as inadequately briefed, we have decided to sift >through the very voluminous record= and dispose of this point of error on its merits.@
- noting this Court’s adoption of the AAMR definition of intellectual disability, which is defined, in part, as “an IQ ‘of about 70’ or below”
- a jury could reasonably reject the defendant’s claim that the commission of capital offense was merely a temporary departure from his usual “benign” crimes and find that he was incorrigible
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
I join the Court’s opinion, ante. I write to emphasize that we have not been asked to decide whether the instruction on mental retardation violated Article 36.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the trial judge to deliver a written charge “setting forth the law” and “not summing up the testimony, [or] discussing the facts .... ”