In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- This is a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals mandamus dissent contesting a Waco/Walker County capital murder case posture where the State sought mandamus to influence trial jury instructions during an ongoing trial.
- Falk, the real party in interest, did not personally kill Canfield; the State sought a Section 7.02(a)(2) instruction to convict Falk as a party under the Penal Code.
- The trial court was concerned about testimony from witnesses Isaacs and one under the shed, which are not included in the record before the court of appeals or this court, while other guards testified about how the events unfolded.
- The majority speculates about Falk’s degree of complicity, noting the possibility that the record could support a different basis for party liability but concludes the trial judge’s theory (7.02(b) conspiracy) may be incorrect or not clearly supported.
- The dissent argues mandamus relief in this context would intrude on a capital trial and would misapply the standard by treating evolving evidentiary questions as ministerial duties.
- The dissent emphasizes that mandamus should not be used to allow interlocutory appeals or to compel a particular result in matters requiring judgment or discretion, especially during ongoing trials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel the trial court to give a 7.02(a)(2) instruction | Weeks contends the State has a clear right to the instruction. | Weeks argues the record does not present a manifestly justified basis for the instruction at issue. | No clear right; mandamus inappropriate |
| Whether mandamus can compel a 7.02(b) conspiracy instruction | State asserts the instruction is supported by the evidence and law. | Falk contends the instruction relies on novel applications of law not clearly settled. | Not clearly authorized; not a ministerial duty warranting mandamus |
| Whether mandamus should be used to interrupt an ongoing capital trial | State seeks relief to prevent an alleged legal error before deliberation. | Dissent argues such intrusion risks unjust outcomes and circumvention of ordinary appellate remedies. | Mandamus not appropriate to interfere with ongoing trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (mandamus limitations and remedial standards)
- Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (writ of mandamus lies to compel entry of a judgment, not a specific judgment)
- Healey v. McMeans, 884 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (mandamus standards for ministerial vs non-ministerial acts)
- State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (illustrates principles of evidentiary sufficiency and mandamus context)
- Poe, See Poe (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (authorities on statutory interpretation and mandamus scope)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (variance in manner and means and sufficiency considerations)
- Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (case law on mandamus and standards for relief)
- Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (interlocutory review and mandamus standards)