finding that the death penalty was not ―unusual‖ under the Texas Constitution 3 But see Anderson, 932 S.W.2d at 509 (―We do not decide whether the state constitutional provision is broader than its counterpart.‖). 5 because the Court of Criminal Appeals ―has never in its history held the death penalty to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Texas Constitution‖
How later courts described this case
- finding that the death penalty was not ―unusual‖ under the Texas Constitution 3 But see Anderson, 932 S.W.2d at 509 (―We do not decide whether the state constitutional provision is broader than its counterpart.‖). 5 because the Court of Criminal Appeals ―has never in its history held the death penalty to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Texas Constitution‖
- explaining that “only exception” to adverse-ruling requirement “occurs if an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm”
- finding defendant did not receive adverse ruling where counsel objected to improper argument, and trial court replied, “The jury’s been instructed. [State], you have two minutes left”
- holding that capital punishment is neither cruel nor unusual for purposes of the Texas Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAIRD, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the resolution of points of error twenty, twenty-four and twenty-five for the reasons stated in Francis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 176, 177 (Tex.Cr.App.1996)(Baird, J., concurring and dissenting). However, I disagree with the majority's treatment of point of error six for the reasons stated in Morris v. State, — S.W.2d —(Tex.Cr.App. No. 71,799, 1996 WL 514833 , delivered this dayXBaird, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I join only the judgment of the Court.