Muhammad, Naim
AP-77,021
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Naim Rasool Muhammad was convicted (May 2013) of capital murder for intentionally drowning his two young sons and sentenced to death after jury answered Article 37.071 special issues affirmatively. Direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals followed.
- Facts: appellant kidnapped the boys during a custody conflict, walked them to a creek twice, held their heads under water until they stopped moving, then left their bodies; he resisted arrest and later blamed the mother.
- Trial included extensive evidence of appellant’s long history of violent conduct (child/juvenile adjudications, assaults including against women and his sister, probation violations) and psychiatric evaluations (cognitive deficits; experts discussed antisocial personality disorder).
- Major contested trial rulings on appeal: sufficiency of evidence for future dangerousness; denial of numerous challenges for cause during voir dire; admission of autopsy and identification photographs; admission and manner of proving extraneous-offense evidence during punishment; various evidentiary rulings (CPS interview/Miranda, use of police reports to refresh witnesses, expert testimony scope); prosecutor argument and trial judge comments.
- The Court reviewed 54 points of error, found the evidence and trial rulings within the law, and affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for future dangerousness | Evidence insufficient: no prior penitentiary convictions, mitigation evidence (low risk), family-conflict motive; in-prison risk would be low | Jury may rely on offense circumstances, victims’ helplessness, appellant’s history, lack of remorse, and expert evidence — supporting a finding beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, jury reasonably found a probability appellant would commit future violent acts |
| Denial of challenges for cause to venire members (voir dire) | Trial court erred by denying cause strikes for multiple jurors who were "death-prone," biased, or unable to follow law | Prospective jurors clarified during voir dire they could follow law, consider mitigation, and keep open minds; trial court credited demeanor and explanations | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; appellant failed to show at least three erroneous denials required for relief given extra peremptory strikes |
| Admission of autopsy and identification photographs (guilt phase) | Photographs were cumulative, gruesome, unnecessary (defense conceded causation), and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Photos were relevant to manner/cause of death, injuries not visible externally, and to medical examiner testimony; probative value not substantially outweighed prejudice | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting selected autopsy and ID photos as relevant and not unduly prejudicial |
| Admission and proof of extraneous offenses at punishment; pretrial threshold hearing | Trial court should have held a pretrial threshold ruling and excluded anecdotal or unsubstantiated extraneous-offense testimony (officers testifying from reports) | Trial judge may admit evidence conditionally and determine admissibility during trial; State must (and did) clearly prove extraneous offenses by end of presentation; court gave oral/written instructions to jurors | Affirmed: judge acted within discretion; conditionally admitting and later tying-up evidence was permissible; jury instructions cured concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on future-dangerousness)
- Wardrip v. State, 56 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (factors jury may consider on future-dangerousness)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for challenge for cause and juror bias assessment)
- Rosales v. State, 841 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (circumstances of the offense alone can support future-dangerousness)
- Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (requirement that State clearly prove extraneous offenses and perpetrator before punishment-phase use)
- Wilkerson v. State, 173 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (when CPS interviewers can be treated as law-enforcement agents for custodial-interrogation/Miranda purposes)