Kimberly Nicole Cormier v. State
540 S.W.3d 185
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Cormier was charged with capital murder in 2014 for participating in an aggravated robbery that resulted in Bonilla’s death.
- A jury found Cormier guilty; the State did not seek the death penalty, so the trial court automatically sentenced her to life without parole under §12.31(a)(2).
- Cormier contended the trial court erred by not defining “imminent” for the duress defense and by enforcing a mandatory LWP sentence without considering mitigating evidence.
- At trial, the defense introduced a proposed definition of “imminent” for the jury to use in the duress instruction, which the trial court refused.
- Cormier did not attempt to flee Nicholas or warn Bonilla; she claimed she acted in fear for her life amid Nicholas’s threats.
- The court affirmed the conviction and the life-without-parole sentence, addressing both the definitional issue and the facial/applied challenges to §12.31(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury should have a definition for ‘imminent’ in duress | Cormier argues the tendered definition of imminent was necessary | Cormier relies on Devine’s definition, but the court held no required definition | No reversible error; trial court did not err in not defining imminent. |
| Whether §12.31(a)(2) violates cruel or unusual punishment principles | Cormier asserts facial and applied unconstitutionality under Texas and U.S. constitutions | Court follows Harmelin and Miller to uphold automatic life without parole for adults | Statute constitutional on face and as applied to Cormier. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (definition and sufficiency guidance for imminent duress standard)
- Anguish v. State, 991 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (imminent threat concepts in duress context)
- Smith v. State, 297 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for juror understanding of undefinable terms in charges)
- Nava v. State, 379 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (jury instruction error review when defining defensive terms)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (allows mandatory life imprisonment for adults; does not require individualized hearing)