explaining that capital murder often involves proof of other criminal conduct and therefore “it is more accurate to view it as a result of conduct offense which also includes nature of circumstances and/or nature of conduct elements depending upon the underlying conduct which elevates the intentional murder to capital murder”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that capital murder often involves proof of other criminal conduct and therefore “it is more accurate to view it as a result of conduct offense which also includes nature of circumstances and/or nature of conduct elements depending upon the underlying conduct which elevates the intentional murder to capital murder”
- holding that because facts, as applied to law in application paragraph, pointed jury to appropriate portion of definitions, no harm resulted from court’s failure to limit definitions of culpable mental states to result and circumstances of conduct
- holding that 21 years of crime-free, violence-free behavior, twelve years of good behavior in prison, and other meaningful, productive activities were not sufficient to outweigh the State’s evidence in support of the death penalty
- holding no harm occurred by giving superfluous abstract instruction on causation when the issue of causation was not incorporated into the application paragraph and jury was not authorized to convict on that theory of causation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAMPBELL, J.,
concurs in the result in accordance with my dissenting opinion in Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), this day decided, and otherwise joins the opinion.
MeCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J., join this note.
CLINTON, J., dissents.