Henry, Alvin Peter Jr.
PD-0511-15
| Tex. App. | Jul 10, 2015Background
- Defendant Alvin Peter Henry, Jr. led a 16‑minute, high‑speed chase after an alleged theft from Walmart; dash‑cam played to jury. Convicted of evading arrest with a motor vehicle and a deadly‑weapon finding; jury assessed sentence enhanced to 60 years.
- Pretrial psychological evaluation (Dr. Bell) found low IQ/mental retardation and psychotic symptoms (voices, hallucinations); concluded Henry was competent and could tell right from wrong but had impaired judgment and impulse control.
- Defense sought to admit diminished‑capacity evidence during guilt/innocence and requested a jury instruction allowing the jury to consider that evidence in assessing mens rea; the trial court excluded the evidence and declined the instruction as confusing and irrelevant to mens rea.
- At punishment, the State introduced certified prior judgments and, after Henry pled "not true" to enhancements, introduced testimony (Henry and his cousin Coleman) that Henry had been incarcerated for aggravated assault (1989) and aggravated robbery (2002); court relied on that testimony plus stipulations to link priors.
- The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the diminished‑capacity evidence or denying the instruction, and that evidence was legally sufficient to link Henry to the enhancement convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Henry's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of diminished‑capacity evidence at guilt/innocence | Ruffin allows mental‑illness evidence to rebut mens rea; Henry presented expert and lay testimony showing severe deficits that negated required culpable mental state | Evidence did not directly rebut requisite mens rea; expert said Henry understood right/wrong and ran to avoid arrest, so evidence irrelevant or confusing | Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the evidence; appellate court affirmed exclusion |
| Jury instruction on diminished capacity | Where evidence raises defensive issue, court must give requested instruction; denial deprived Henry of sole defensive vehicle | Instruction unnecessary because evidence did not negate mens rea; Henry made independent (if poor) choices shown on video and testimony | Denial of instruction not an abuse of discretion; appellate court affirmed |
| Sufficiency to link priors used for enhancement | Prior judgments did not adequately link Henry Jr. to the convictions; testimony that he had been incarcerated is insufficient under Prihoda — State must prove identity beyond reasonable doubt | Henry and Coleman testified Henry was convicted and imprisoned for the specified offenses; Henry had stipulated to many prior judgments pretrial, and testimony linked him to the enhancement convictions | Court held combined stipulation and punishment‑phase testimony legally sufficient to link Henry to the two prior convictions; appellate court affirmed |
| Conflict with precedent (Ruffin, Prihoda, others) | Appellate decision conflicts with Ruffin (admission of mental‑illness evidence to rebut mens rea) and with Prihoda (requiring stronger linkage for priors) | Appellate court interpreted those authorities as distinguishable and within its discretionary review | Court found no controlling conflict; affirmed trial court rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (permitting mental‑illness evidence to rebut mens rea and discussing limits on diminished‑capacity evidence)
- Jackson v. State, 160 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (framework for admissibility of mental‑illness evidence and limits on claims of incapacity to form mens rea)
- Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (admission not required where mental‑illness evidence does not directly rebut culpable mens rea)
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (State must prove prior conviction exists and defendant is linked to it)
- Prihoda v. State, 352 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (explaining that certified judgment alone may be insufficient to link defendant to prior conviction and examining totality of proof)
- Back v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (certified judgment alone may be insufficient proof of identity for priors)
- Krajcovic v. State, 393 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for submitting defensive issues to the jury)
- Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (mens rea is a fact question for the jury)