Con Mahn Pham v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4997
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- On Sept. 10, 2010, Con Manh Pham stabbed and killed Dinh Pham at their church basement; Pham called 911 and claimed self‑defense.
- Appellant had a long history of mental illness, stopped taking prescribed medication in the months before the killing, and displayed paranoid and bizarre behavior reported by family.
- Two court‑admissible experts disagreed: Dr. Schneider (court‑appointed) concluded appellant was legally insane at the time (paranoid schizophrenia, frontal‑lobe impairment, believed victim was a cannibal); Dr. Rush (State‑retained) concluded appellant was mentally ill but sane (pointing to behavior, fabricated self‑defense story, and 911 call).
- Jury convicted appellant of murder and implicitly rejected the insanity defense; appellant appealed, challenging (1) admission of the State’s expert testimony and (2) legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to reject insanity.
- The trial court admitted Dr. Rush under Texas Rule of Evidence 702; appellant argued Article 46C.102 qualifications (requirements for court‑appointed experts) should also apply to party‑retained experts.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of State expert (Dr. Rush) | Rush lacked statutory qualifications required by Art. 46C.102, so his testimony should be excluded | Art. 46C.102 applies to court‑appointed experts only; party‑retained experts are governed by Rule 702 | Court upheld admission: Article 46C.102 applies to court‑appointed examiners; Rush admissible under Rule 702 |
| Legal sufficiency of evidence rejecting insanity | No evidence supports jury’s implied finding of sanity; appellant proved insanity by preponderance | State points to Rush’s testimony (behavior before/after, 911 call, fabricated self‑defense) as evidence of ability to know killing was illegal | Court found some evidence supporting jury’s finding; legal sufficiency challenge overruled |
| Factual sufficiency of evidence rejecting insanity | Evidence of insanity (experts, family testimony, medication cessation) outweighs State’s evidence; verdict is against great weight | Jury was entitled to weigh competing expert testimony and credibility; State’s evidence not insubstantial | Court held record does not show verdict is manifestly unjust or against the great weight of evidence; factual sufficiency challenge overruled |
| Applicability of Owens precedent | Owens requires statutory qualifications for experts addressing competency/insanity | Owens is distinguishable (competency, court‑appointed expert) and does not control insanity context for party experts | Court rejected Owens as controlling and constrained Art. 46C.102 to court‑appointments only |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard for admitting evidence)
- Marras v. State, 741 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (evidence admissibility principles)
- Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (upholding discretionary rulings if correct on any theory)
- De Freece v. State, 848 S.W.2d 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (court‑appointed expert as disinterested witness)
- Granviel v. State, 552 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (court‑appointed psychiatrist role)
- Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (party‑retained experts may rebut without being court‑appointed)
- Patterson v. State, 509 S.W.2d 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (rejecting exclusivity of court‑appointment procedure)
- Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (insanity focuses on knowing conduct is "wrong" meaning illegal)
- Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defendant bears burden to prove insanity by preponderance)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (legal sufficiency standard for civil‑burden issues)
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (factual sufficiency and appellate review limits)
- Tapps v. State, 294 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (statutory construction principles)
- Owens v. State, 437 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2014) (distinguished; involved competency and court‑appointed expert)