Saenz, Kimberly Clark
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1915
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Kimberly Saenz was indicted on five counts of aggravated assault (five dialysis patients suffered adverse episodes) and one count of capital murder under Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(7) (murder of more than one person in same transaction or same scheme/course of conduct).
- The jury acquitted on two aggravated-assault counts, convicted Saenz of three aggravated assaults and of capital murder.
- The capital-murder jury charge listed five named victims and instructed jurors to determine whether Saenz "did intentionally or knowingly cause the death of more than one of the following persons…" but did not require jurors to agree on which specific person(s) constituted the predicate murder.
- During closing the State told jurors they must find Saenz killed at least two of the five victims and said jurors need not agree on which two.
- Saenz raised on appeal (first time) that the charge and the State’s argument permitted a nonunanimous verdict as to the identities/number of victims required for the predicate murder element of § 19.03(a)(7), violating the unanimity requirement.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals found the jury charge erroneous for failing to require unanimous agreement on a specific predicate murder and remanded for further proceedings, reviewing harm under Almanza due to forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saenz) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 19.03(a)(7) capital-murder charge must require jury unanimity as to the identity/number of victims constituting the predicate murder | Charge and prosecutor's argument allowed conviction without unanimous agreement on at least one specific victim as the predicate murder | The State argued jurors need only unanimously find at least two victims were killed; they need not agree on which victims | Reversed Court of Appeals: jury must unanimously agree on a specific predicate murder (identity of at least one victim); the charge was erroneous and violated unanimity; review for egregious harm under Almanza because claim was forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Jourdan v. State, 428 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (unanimity requirement applies to every element of charged offense)
- Pizzo v. State, 235 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (jury unanimity principle)
- Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (jury must unanimously agree on a single incident/unit of prosecution when State proceeds on multiple units)
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (gravamen of capital murder is causing a death plus an aggravating element)
- Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (same-victim requirement for predicate murder in alternate-theory capital murder instruction)
- Saenz v. State, 166 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (§ 19.03(a)(7) requires at least one murder in addition to predicate murder; unit of prosecution is killing of more than one individual)
- Ex parte Milner, 394 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (interpretation of § 19.03(a)(7)(B); multiple-murder requirement and limits on separate convictions when same victims overlap)