jury was fully able to consider the mitigating effect of evidence of physical abuse and troubled childhood, under special issue number two
How later courts described this case
- jury was fully able to consider the mitigating effect of evidence of physical abuse and troubled childhood, under special issue number two
- evidence of "a low level of intelligence, shown by extremely substandard IQ test scores," poor school record, turbulent childhood and troubled relationship with father, and youth could be given mitigating effect when answering the special issues
- not error to fail to instruct jury to consider specifically appellant’s age as a mitigating factor because the jury’s answer as to special issue two (future dangerousness) would reflect their consideration of all the mitigating evidence
- not error to fail to instruct jury to consider specifically appellant’s age as a mitigating factor as the jury’s answer as to special issue two (future dangerousness) would reflect their consideration of all the mitigating evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, Judge,
dissenting.
In as much as Judge Clinton’s dissent continues the belief that jurors in a capital murder case need a special instruction on mitigating evidence, as aptly set out in Stewart v. State, 686 S.W.2d 118 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. joined by Miller, J., Dissenting), I join his dissent to the disposition of point of error number four. We only stopped dissenting to the majority’s steadfast refusal to require such an instruction because to continue to do so was “futile”. See Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. joined by Miller, J., Dissenting).