good and non-violent character, good deeds, no criminal record
How later courts described this case
- good and non-violent character, good deeds, no criminal record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
I adhere to my position as stated in Ex parte Baldree, 810 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Baird, J., dissenting):
From Penry and Franklin [v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 , 108 S.Ct. 2320 , 101 L.Ed.2d 155 ][ (1988) ], I draw the following conclusion: If a criminal defendant offers relevant mitigating evidence ‘not relevant to’ the special issues (e.g., evidence of positive character traits) and/or “beyond the scope of” the special issues (e.g., disadvantaged background, or emotional or mental problems), and the mitigating evidence has a practical and/or constitutional significance to a criminal defendant’s moral culpability, the Texas capital sentencing scheme would violate of the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments unless the trial court provided the jury with a vehicle to express its reasoned moral response to the mitigating evidence.
Baldree, 810 S.W.2d at 220 .
However, unless the United States Supreme Court agrees to consider this Court’s interpretation of Penry and Franklin, I am in the minority. See, Black v. State, 816 S.W.2d 350, 374 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Baird, J., dissenting); Boggess v. State, 1991 WL 87597 (Tex.Cr.App. No. 69,990, delivered May 29, 1991) (Baird, J., dissenting); Lackey v. State, 816 S.W.2d 392, 405 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (opinion on reh’g) (Baird, J., dissenting); and Baldree, supra. 1
The doctrine of stare decisis provides the framework for the orderly administration of justice. In my view, regardless of how strongly a judge personally feels about the correctness of his/her position, if that position fails to garner a majority of the court, he/she should adopt the view held by the majority. Therefore, while I maintain my personal belief that this Court is construing Penry much too narrowly, under the doctrine of stare decisis I am constrained to concur in the result reached today by the majority.
. See also, Earhart v. State, 823 S.W.2d 607, 632-33, n. 9, n. 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693, 706, n. 18 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).