Daniel, Brandon
AP-77,034
| Tex. | Jul 20, 2015Background
- Brandon Daniel was indicted for capital murder of Austin Police Officer Jaime Padron; the jury found him guilty and the court imposed death based on punishment questions.
- The capital offense occurred April 6, 2012 at a Walmart in Austin; Daniel was armed with a loaded .380 pistol and first shot Padron, then pressed the gun to Padron’s neck and killed him while others attempted to subdue him.
- Police recovered the weapon, six-round magazine, and ammunition; shell casings at the scene matched Daniel’s gun, and his backpack contained various food items and alcohol purchased during the incident.
- DNA testing showed Officer Padron’s DNA on Daniel’s right hand; his blood contained alprazolam (Xanax) and marijuana; text messages showed Xanax purchases prior to the offense; Daniel admitted to killing a police officer in a recorded interrogation.
- During pretrial and trial, Daniel exhibited lack of remorse, engaged in jail misconduct and attempted to gain inmate privileges, while later mental-health and addiction experts offered mitigating and culpability assessments.
- At punishment, the jury found there was a probability Daniel would commit future violent acts and that there were insufficient mitigating factors to warrant life imprisonment; the trial court sentenced him to death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Future dangerousness sufficiency | Soliz-based standard; evidence shows planning and lack of remorse | Argues weaknesses in predictive indicators; may minimize future risk | Legally sufficient to support finding of future dangerousness |
| Challenge for cause to venireperson Reading | Reading biased toward death penalty and would skew mitigation | Reading could follow law and consider mitigating evidence | No reversible error; denial of challenge for cause affirmed; no harm shown |
| Rule 705(b) voir dire on Dr. Mauro’s testimony | Desire to probe underlying basis of expert findings | Proper scope; hearing limited to qualifications, not specific findings | No preserved error; proper Rule 705(b) hearing conducted; third point without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Soliz v. State, 432 S.W.3d 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014) (guides future dangerousness review; dignity of record evidence)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (circumstances of offense and ongoing conduct relevant to dangerousness)
- Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (circumstances of offense support future dangerousness finding)
- Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (circumstances surrounding offense as probative of dangerousness)
- Gonzales v. State, 353 S.W.3d 826 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (standard for determining challenge for cause to veniremember; deference to trial court)