Narjes Modarresi v. State
14-14-00427-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 9, 2015Background
- Narjes Modarresi was indicted for capital murder arising from the April 21, 2010 death of her infant son, Masih, found face‑down in mud; cause of death ruled homicide by drowning.
- Trial evidence included extensive psychiatric history and treatment records showing Bipolar I disorder with prior postpartum psychosis, hospitalizations (including ECT), medication changes, and a recent severe depressive/psychotic episode around the birth.
- Multiple treating and forensic psychiatrists testified for the defense about bipolar disorder, postpartum psychosis, psychotic symptoms (hallucinations, delusions, catatonia), and impaired judgment around the offense date.
- Modarresi was convicted by a jury on May 22, 2014 and automatically sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under Texas Penal Code §12.31(a)(2) for capital murder; trial court denied defense motions challenging the mandatory LWOP statute and a motion for new trial.
- Appellant’s brief argues (1) the mandatory life‑without‑parole sentence is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant suffering severe mental illness; (2) the statute violates equal protection by targeting a class (women with postpartum mental illness); (3) evidence was insufficient to prove intent for capital murder; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial to admit mitigation character testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Modarresi) | Held (trial court / posture) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether mandatory LWOP under Tex. Penal Code §§12.31(a), 19.03(a)(8) is cruel and unusual as applied to a mentally ill offender | Mandatory LWOP is a valid statutory punishment for capital murder and precludes lesser punishment for the offense charged | Mandatory LWOP prevents consideration of mitigating evidence (severe mental illness/postpartum psychosis) and thus violates the Eighth Amendment and Tex. Const. art. I §13 as applied | Trial court denied motion to declare statutes unconstitutional; sentence imposed (automatic LWOP) |
| 2. Whether mandatory LWOP violates Equal Protection when applied to women with postpartum mental illness | State treats similarly situated capital defendants uniformly; statute applies neutrally to capital murder | The statute unfairly targets a class (women with severe postpartum mental illness) by removing individualized sentencing consideration, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and Texas Constitution | Trial court denied equal‑protection challenge |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence to support capital murder conviction (intent element) | Circumstantial and testimonial evidence supported a rational jury finding of intent or substantial certainty to cause death | Defendant lacked intent to kill; psychosis/ hallucinations led to “hiding/getting rid of” the baby, not an intent to kill, so evidence was insufficient | Jury convicted; appellate issue preserved arguing insufficiency of evidence |
| 4. Denial of motion for new trial to admit jail mitigation/character testimony | State opposed reopening for mitigation that would not change capital‑case statutory sentencing constraints | Appellant sought new trial to present chaplain testimony about exemplary jail conduct and conversion as mitigation relevant to punishment; denial was an abuse of discretion | Trial court denied the motion for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer must consider relevant mitigating evidence)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (sentencing scheme must allow consideration of mitigating factors)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; individualized sentencing required)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment limits punishments for classes with diminished culpability)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment proportionality and individualized sentencing principles)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (categorical Eighth Amendment protection for certain classes with diminished culpability)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) (mandatory death sentencing unconstitutional for failing to consider individual mitigating circumstances)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (importance of allowing jury consideration of mitigating evidence)
- Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010) (mitigating evidence issues in capital sentencing)