Lockard v. State
364 S.W.3d 920
Tex. App.2012Background
- Appellant shot his 94-year-old grandfather, reporting the act to 911.
- Appellant advised the jury he was insane at the time of the murder; mental illness evidence was presented.
- Jury, during deliberations, asked about consequences if found not guilty by reason of insanity; sought substantive law on disposition.
- Trial court refused to provide substantive law, citing article 46C.154; defense objected but preserved error.
- Appellant challenged the ruling as violation of due process and due course of law; conviction and 97-year sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated by not answering jury on insanity-disposition consequences. | Lockard asserts 46C.154 denial breached due process. | State argues statute policy; no constitutional defect. | No due process violation; statute upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zwack v. State, 757 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (statutory prohibition on informing jurors of insanity-disposition consequences; policy matter for Legislature)
- Robison v. State, 888 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (deference to Legislature; no inherent due process violation in statute; could not rise to fundamental fairness)
- Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (statutory prohibition upheld; legislature governs policy decisions on jury guidance)
- Patterson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1983) (jury should not be concerned with consequences of verdict; due process not offended)