Devoe, Paul Gilbert
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1669
Tex. Crim. App.2011Background
- Devoe was convicted in October 2009 of capital murder for the intentional killing of two victims in a single criminal transaction, and a death sentence was imposed after the jury answered the special issues under Art. 37.071.
- The punishment-phase issue challenged was sufficiency of evidence supporting future dangerousness under Art. 37.071, §2(b)(1).
- Extraneous-offense evidence, admitted at guilt as same-transaction contextual evidence, linked the Marble Falls and Jonestown crimes to Devoe’s flight and identity as the killer.
- The State introduced a sequence of extraneous offenses (gun theft, bar shooting, Allred killing, Pennsylvania robbery) to contextualize the charged offenses and prove identity and the crime spree.
- The defense challenged a prosecutor’s handling of live ammunition in the jury box and Batson-based religion challenges; the court denied a mistrial and upheld the Batson-related rulings.
- At punishment, the court addressed whether evidence about prison conditions and Devoe’s mental health affected individualized sentencing; the court ultimately rejected these challenges and affirmed the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of future dangerousness evidence | Devoe argues pristine prison record undermines future-dangerousness finding | State argues factors beyond prison behavior support future danger | Sufficient evidence supported future dangerousness |
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence | Evidence comprised a single crime spree; essential to context | Rulings within zone of reasonable disagreement; not error | Admissible as same-transaction contextual evidence |
| Limiting instructions on 404(b) evidence | Requests for individual limiting instructions were denied | Limiting instruction not required for same-transaction contextual evidence | No error; limiting instruction ultimately included in jury charge |
| Batson challenge based on religion | State's use of religious criteria to strike jurors improper under Batson | Casarez permits religion-based peremptory strikes; no Batson error | Point overruled; Batson challenge rejected |
| Mental illness and individualized sentencing | Mental illness/competence and prison-incompetence evidence undermines individualized sentencing | No Eighth-Amendment bar; evidence permissible to assess future danger | No reversible error; death sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (same-transaction contextual evidence guidance)
- Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for 404(b) rulings)
- Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (contextual evidence admissibility; zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Casarez v. State, 913 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (Batson challenge to religion-based strikes not applicable to case (religion-based))
- Castaldo v. State, 78 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limiting instruction not required for same-transaction contextual evidence)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (future dangerousness testimony reliability; admissibility not fatal; Barefoot reference)
- Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (consideration of guilt and punishment evidence in assessing future dangerousness)
- Emery v. State, 881 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (guidance on evaluating future dangerousness factors)
- Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (mental illness as factor in capital sentencing; no per se bar)
- Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (rules on admissibility of 404(b) evidence over character conformity concerns)