Freeman v. State, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 387

Freeman was convicted of capital murder of Game Warden Justin Hurst based on jury findings under Article 37.071, leading to a death sentence; the chase and firefight with multiple officers occurred after Freeman, the truck driver, led officers on a high-speed pursuit and fired at them, ultimately killing Hurst.
The pursuit ended with Freeman parking at a driveway by Lissie Cemetery; Freeman exited and fired at officers, exchanging a handgun for a semi-automatic rifle and continuing to shoot, with Hurst mortally wounded while in the line of duty.
License plates tied the fleeing truck to Freeman, who was known to officers but not immediately recognized as the driver during the chase; he was later identified as the shooter.
Pretrial publicity and local reactions in Wharton County prompted a motion for change of venue; the court held a hearing, reviewed voir dire and venire knowledge, and denied the motion as within the trial court’s discretion.
The punishment phase included extensive testimony on Freeman’s character, temper, and potential for future dangerousness, alongside evidence of his past behavior and mental-health indicators; the State argued deterrence and community impact in its closing arguments.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and Freeman’s death sentence, after rejecting Freeman’s arguments on venue, future dangerousness, jury arguments, and constitutional challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change of venue abuse of discretion	Freeman argues pervasive local publicity tainted Wharton County jury pool.	State contends court properly weighed publicity and voir dire; venire responses showed capacity for fairness.	Not an abuse; venue denial within zone of reasonable disagreement.
Sufficiency of future dangerousness evidence	Life-history and mental-health factors negate ongoing threat.	Offense facts and defendant’s behavior support continued danger in or out of prison.	Rational jury could find future dangerousness beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecutor's closing-argument on officers and serial killer reference	Prosecutor’s comparisons and ‘hired guns’ remark improper influence.	Remarks were within permissible categories; any error cured by instruction.	Harmless; no reversible prejudice; argument not structural error.
Constitutionality of Texas capital-murder statute as applied	Statute misapplied; broad interpretation denies due process under state constitution.	Point insufficiently preserved; merits not well-developed on appeal; statute valid.	Issue inadequately briefed; constitutional challenge rejected on preservation grounds.
Indictment and grand jury involvement	Argues grand jury should review death-penalty decision; due process concerns.	U.S. Constitution does not require grand jury review of special-issue determinations; state law governs.	No structural flaw; indictment constitutionality sustained.

Gonzalez v. State, 222 S.W.3d 446 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for change of venue; voir dire used to assess publicity impact)
Von Byrd v. State, 569 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (pretrial publicity not per se ground to grant change of venue)
Gardner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) (venire capable of seating fair jurors despite publicity)
Berry v. State, 233 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (future dangerousness considerations in prison context; not controlling here)
Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (society includes prison population; future dangerousness standard)
Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (adopted plurality framework for future dangerousness)
Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (plurality approach to society concept in future dangerousness)
Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (defense of 10-12 Rule and capital process)
Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) ( Harmlessness standard for improper closing argument)