Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727

Background

Martinez was convicted of capital murder for an offense committed in July 1983 and sentenced to death under Article 37.0712.
In 2007, this Court granted habeas relief, set aside the death sentence, and remanded for a new punishment hearing to consider mitigating evidence.
A new punishment trial occurred in 2009 before a different jury, which again sentenced Martinez to death based on Article 37.0711 factors.
The State sought automatic direct review of the 2009 sentence; Martinez challenged multiple aspects of the punishment-phase proceedings.
The evidence at issue spanned Martinez’s extensive criminal history, prison disciplinary record, gang affiliations, and lack of remorse, along with the offense itself.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s death sentence, holding that the issues raised were without merit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Future dangerousness sufficiency	Martinez argues the evidence does not support future dangerousness.	State contends ample evidence shows continued threat to society.	Evidence legally supports future danger; no reversible error.
Deliberateness sufficiency (fact-finding)	Martinez claims the evidence is factually insufficient to prove deliberateness.	State argues offense facts establish deliberateness beyond a reasonable doubt.	Brooks overruled Clewis; deliberate standard applied; evidence sufficient.
Extraneous offense testimony	Martinez argues admission of the unadjudicated threat was prejudicial.	State asserts relevance to future dangerousness and character.	Admission proper; probative value outweighed prejudice; not reversible error.
Confrontation right and use of DeAnda testimony	Martinez contends the Crawford/804(b)(1) requirements were violated by using DeAnda's prior testimony.	State contends testimony was admissible due to unavailability and similar motive.	No Sixth Amendment violation; similar-motive requirement not violated; former testimony admissible.
10/12 rule pressure on jurors	"10/12 rule" coerces jurors to reach a verdict.	State maintains rule constitutional and consistently upheld.	Rule withstands constitutional scrutiny; affirmed as valid.

Key Cases Cited

Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (no factual-sufficiency review for future dangerousness)
Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (no factual-sufficiency review for future dangerousness)
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (standard for factual sufficiency of elements of offense (overruled later))
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (overruled Clewis; applied post-Clewis standard)
Wardrip v. State, 56 S.W.3d 588 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (factual sufficiency in deliberateness addressed under later rule)
Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) (factors for future dangerousness; includes age and history)
Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (offense facts may support future dangerousness finding)
Sonnier v. State, 913 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (consideration of multiple factors for future dangerousness)
Kunkle v. State, 771 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (role of prior history in future dangerousness assessment)
Hunter v. State, 243 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (extensive offenses may justify future dangerousness finding)
Berry v. State, 233 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (distinguishes when dangerousness evidence is insufficient)
Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) ("society" includes prison population for future dangerousness)
Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (interpretation of future dangerousness standard)
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (Penry I; mitigation instruction framework influencing later cases)
Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (10/12 rule alignment with death-penalty framework)
McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (upholding certain sentencing procedures in capital cases)