Gonzales v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1323
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Gonzales was convicted of capital murder in 1995 and sentenced to death after a 1998 direct appeal.
- Federal habeas relief granted in part, remanding for a new punishment hearing before the Odessa trial court.
- A May 2009 punishment hearing the jury answered the special issues leading to another death sentence.
- Appellant challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction to hold a new punishment hearing and the rulings on voir dire challenges.
- The court held the 12-10 rule constitutional, denied claims about lethal-injection protocol timing, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hold punishment hearing | Gonzales argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction absent federal order transmission. | Gonzales asserts the mandate must be received before new punishment hearing. | Jurisdiction restored by federal order; hearing proper under Art. 44.29(c). |
| Challenge for cause to Murdock | Murdock’s parole beliefs could hinder fair sentencing; should have been excused for cause. | Record shows law explained and juror could follow oath; no abuse of discretion. | No clear abuse; Murdock not compelled for cause; affirmed denial. |
| Challenge for cause to Phillips | Phillips showed explicit bias and preconceived views preventing impartiality. | Court could assess demeanor; juror stated willingness to follow law; another juror was available. | Court did not abuse discretion; Phillips not excused for cause; jury seated. |
| 12-10 Rule constitutionality | Rule provides misleading information and impedes correction by court/parties. | Rule previously rejected; no error in this case. | 12-10 Rule constitutional; no reversible error. |
| Execution protocol ripe for review | Texas lethal-injection protocol could violate Eighth Amendment; subject to review now. | Execution not imminent; issue not ripe for review. | Not ripe; execution protocol review deferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newbury v. State, 135 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (harm from erroneous denial of cause challenges; two-veniremember requirement when extra strike exists)
- Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (deference to trial court on voir dire; vacillating answers require careful review)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1992) (jury impartiality; death penalty must not be automatic)
- Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (execution protocol concerns; not ripe where not imminent)
- Moore v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 1999) (habeas relief scope and timing for new punishment proceedings)