Griffin v. State, 491 S.W.3d 771

Background

Appellant was convicted by a jury of capital murder for intentionally killing Jennifer Hailey on or about Sept. 19, 2010, alleged to have been committed "in the course of" kidnapping her nine‑year‑old son Cameron. The jury answered the statutory special issues and the trial judge sentenced death.
Factual core: appellant entered Hailey’s apartment that night; Cameron observed appellant on top of his mother choking her; later Cameron found his mother unresponsive; appellant subsequently attacked Cameron with a garden trowel, injuring him but not killing him; appellant fled and was later arrested and confessed.
Procedural posture: automatic direct appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals; majority concludes evidence insufficient to support capital‑murder theory and reforms conviction to murder, remanding for a new punishment hearing; a dissent would have affirmed.
Key legal dispute centers on whether the murder was committed "in the course of committing" kidnapping of Cameron (Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2) and § 20.03 definition of kidnapping), i.e., whether the kidnapping was ongoing or the intent formed before or at the time of the killing.
The court applied the Jackson v. Virginia standard (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict) and evaluated statutory definitions and precedent about when restraint/abduction and the required intent are established.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Appellant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to prove capital murder (murder "in the course of" kidnapping)	Evidence allowed inference appellant killed while committing/attempting kidnapping of Cameron; restraint/abduction existed around the time of the killing.	Murder was completed before any kidnapping intent or restraint that would satisfy kidnapping elements; assault on Cameron was an afterthought to silence a witness.	Reversed capital murder verdict: evidence insufficient to show murder "in the course of" kidnapping; kidnapping occurred after murder (so capital element not proved).
Reformation to lesser included offense and remedy	N/A (State had convicted of capital murder)	Reformation to murder and remand for new punishment is appropriate if jury necessarily found murder and evidence supports it.	Judgment reformed to murder (lesser‑included); remand for new punishment hearing.
Fifth Amendment / experts testifying they were instructed not to discuss facts	State: defense opened door by using its expert; rebuttal testimony about limitations of contact does not violate Fifth Amendment.	Testimony that State's expert did not discuss offense with defendant improperly highlighted appellant's silence and violated Privilege.	Majority: claim not preserved under state law; federal claim fails because defense experts opened the door (rebuttal permissible). (Dissent treats claims differently.)
Mental retardation special issue and instruction language	State: instruction to consider all evidence from both phases in weighing special issue was proper and not egregious; jury verdict rejecting retardation was supported by evidence.	Instruction improperly allowed jurors to consider evidence of retardation as mitigating for death; also contested sufficiency that appellant proved retardation.	Jury rejection of mental‑retardation claim upheld (not against great weight); challenged instruction, even if erroneous, did not egregiously harm appellant.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence: view evidence in light most favorable to the verdict)
Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (discussing sufficiency review and inferences for jury findings)
Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (kidnapping is complete when restraint is accomplished and actor forms intent to prevent liberation)
Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (intent may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
Herrin v. State, 125 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (capital murder requires murder be committed in course of predicate felony; intent timing analysis)
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reformation of judgment when only an aggravating element lacks sufficient proof)
Britain v. State, 412 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (reformation to lesser included offense where evidence insufficient only as to aggravating element)
Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (framework for evaluating mental retardation evidence in capital cases)
Ex parte Cathey, 451 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (IQ testing, Flynn effect, and related evidentiary considerations in mental‑retardation analysis)
Hunter v. State, 243 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defendant bears preponderance burden to prove mental retardation at trial)