Ex parte Moore
548 S.W.3d 552
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2018Background
- Bobby James Moore challenged his death sentence claiming intellectual disability (formerly "mental retardation"); state habeas court found him disabled and recommended relief after expert and lay testimony.
- This Court (Tex. Crim. App.) originally applied its Briseno framework, relied on select IQ scores (74 and 78) and Dr. Compton's opinion to deny relief, emphasizing adaptive strengths and prison performance.
- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded, criticizing Briseno factors as nonclinical and instructing reliance on medical diagnostic frameworks (DSM-5/AAIDD) and proper treatment of standard error of measurement for IQ scores.
- On remand the Court adopted the DSM-5 approach (three prongs: intellectual deficits, adaptive deficits across conceptual/social/practical domains, onset in development) and required adaptive-functioning analysis because Moore’s adjusted IQ range included scores ≤70.
- The Court credited State expert Dr. Compton over defense experts and concluded Moore failed to prove adaptive deficits "directly related" to intellectual impairment under DSM-5, giving limited weight to prison-developed strengths and finding many deficits explained by other factors or lack of exposure.
- A dissent argued the majority still improperly weighed strengths, over-relied on prison behavior, failed to defer to habeas factfinding, and that medical evidence and standardized testing support a finding of intellectual disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for assessing intellectual disability | Use current medical standards (DSM-5/AAIDD); Briseno factors unconstitutional | Court may consider Briseno-influenced analysis and contextual evidence | Court adopts DSM-5/abandons Briseno factors; DSM-5 controls when conflict arises |
| Role of IQ scores and standard error of measurement | IQs must be adjusted for SEM; if range reaches ≤70, must examine adaptive functioning | High-end of SEM range and contextual factors can rebut low score implications | SEM applied; because 74±5 yields range ≤70, court proceeds to adaptive-functioning inquiry per Moore (SCOTUS) |
| Adaptive-functioning assessment: strengths vs deficits | Focus on deficits in conceptual/social/practical domains; strengths cannot be used to offset deficits; corroborate outside controlled settings | Point to adaptive strengths (planning, correspondence, commissary math, legal advocacy) and prison-acquired skills to rebut deficits | Court concluded record did not show deficits related to intellectual impairment; credited State expert that adaptive functioning was sufficient to deny diagnosis, while noting DSM-5 guidance on limited weight for prison-developed skills |
| Weight and deference to habeas court and expert testimony | Defer to habeas factfindings and defense experts who found deficits under DSM-5/AAIDD | State expert (Compton) more credible; habeas findings conflicted with record/clinical interpretation | Majority deferred to State expert and denied relief; dissent would defer to habeas findings and grant relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (Supreme Court vacating Texas decision; instructs courts to be informed by DSM-5/AAIDD and rejects Briseno factors)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (categorical Eighth Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled offenders)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (rejects rigid IQ cutoff; requires consideration of SEM and medical standards)
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (previous Texas framework using seven nonclinical evidentiary factors; criticized and effectively disapproved)
- Ex parte Moore, 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (this Court’s prior opinion applying Briseno and denying relief)