# Hall v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 15, 2004 · 160 S.W.3d 24

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690872

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Wayne HALL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 15, 2004
- **Citations:** 160 S.W.3d 24; 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1477; 2004 WL 948342
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Price
- **Judges:** Keller, Meyers, Price, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Cochran, Johnson, Holcomb
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690872

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that where there was conflicting evidence regarding mental retardation, the “trial judge, who presided over the trial and the habeas proceedings, was in the best position to evaluate the conflicting evidence”
- explaining that where there was conflicting evidence regarding mental retardation, the Atrial judge, who presided over the trial and the habeas proceedings, was in the best position to evaluate the conflicting evidence@
- holding that the "trial judge, who presided over the trial and the habeas proceedings, was in the best position to evaluate the conflicting evidence"
- recognizing that the issue of mental retardation to avoid the death penalty may be presented in a habeas proceeding as well as at trial

## Opinion text

PRICE, J.,
concurring,
in which COCHRAN, J., joined.
I agree with the majority that we may consider the habeas record in deciding this direct appeal on remand from the United States Supreme Court. I also agree that the record in this case supports the trial court’s conclusion in habeas proceedings that the appellant is not mentally retarded. I write separately to point out that, generally, for the review of a contested Atkins v. Virginia 1 claim, the trial court will need to hold a live hearing and not base its decision solely on affidavits submitted by the parties.
The habeas proceedings in this case of which we took judicial notice were conducted by affidavit without a live hearing. In this case, the extensive affidavits provide ample evidence from which the trial court could make its findings that the applicant is not mentally retarded. But this is a unique case.
When an applicant’s status as a mentally retarded person is contested, a hearing by affidavit will generally be inadequate. The main reason we defer to a trial judge’s findings is that he is in a better position to determine credibility and determination by seeing and hearing a witness testify. We often say that because we have only a cold record, reviewing courts do not have the best vantage point from which to make factual determinations. 2 Live testimony allows the convicting court to observe a witness’s demeanor, which can add significant information to credibility determinations. Also, opposing counsel may cross-examine witnesses to test the content of a witness’s testimony. These valuable as *41 pects of live testimony are not available in a hearing by affidavit.
Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, Section 9(a) states the “[t]o resolve the [previously unresolved] issues [of fact] the [convicting] court may require affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, and evi-dentiary hearings and may use personal recollection.” But, if the convicting court conducts a hearing by affidavit, and the affidavits are inadequate for us to review the convicting court’s findings, we will be forced to remand to the convicting court for a live hearing, especially if the parties voice objections to the convicting court’s findings. The best course to resolve a contested Atkins claim is to hold a hearing at which live testimony is received.
With these comments, I join the majority-
. 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).
. See Manzi v. State, 88 S.W.3d 240, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (Cochran, J., concurring).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690872. Public record. Not legal advice.