*2
“mental illness
relevant and it is
admis-
C.J.,
MORRISS,
Before
CARTER and
sible as
to
show
the defen-
MOSELEY, JJ.
dant lacked
capacity
...
to form the
specific intent
intent
element of
OPINION
Mays
murder.”
went on to state that it
had been his
and
intention
his trial strate-
Opinion by Justice MOSELEY.
gy
question
on the
panel
mem-
Charged
with
murder in a case
position
bers’ reactions to such a
and at-
wherein the State had waived the death
tempt
they
determine
how
would view
penalty,
DeWayne Mays pled guilty
Clark
evidence of “mens rea of intent versus how
imprisonment.
was sentenced to life
it
of-
would
to the lesser included
Mays appeals the conviction.
negligent
fense of
homicide” and the “in-
dire,
On
voir
made the
manslaughter
statement
cluded offense
and how
that, “The law in Texas is that
canwe
look the defendant’s state of mind and mental
at their history,
history,
their
impairments
medical
their
as related
that state
psychological history,
psychiatric
their
his- mind would
to the lesser in-
have related
tory,
we
can look at
manslaughter.”
those factors
cluded offense of
determine their state of
At
mind.”
this
The
responded
trial court
that evidence
point, the
a
interrupted
request
State
with
of this nature would
conference,
for a bench
after which the
be applicable
punish-
in a case where
jury was removed and an on-record discus-
punishment
ment
But the
issue.
regarding
sion
the admissibility of such
only
is not at
case. The
issue
this
evidence ensued.
thing
applied
to in this case
could be
guilt
trial court commenced this
or inno-
discus
would be the
sion with the acknowledgment that it had
be
cence. Guilt or innocence cannot
de-
provided
been
a copy
capacity
with
fended
diminished
(Tex.Crim.App.
gomery, 810 at 391. long As as the permissible We believe that this is a aim trial court’s falls within the zone of of following the doc- diminished-capacity reasonable disagreement, we will affirm its Jackson; words, forth in trine set other decision. Moses v. 105 S.W.3d so long pursuing 627 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). court’s attempting prove course of *4 decision must be in view reasonable of all absolutely culpability defendant has no State, the relevant facts. Santellan v. 939 is, rather, his actions but an making effort 155, 169 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). S.W.2d to show that the defendant’s mental state
Jackson makes it clear reduced his mens rea to a “Texas does the recognize of a diminished lesser offense can capacity as i.e., permissible affirmative become an that is a form of ave- lesser Jackson, the nue to insanity.” pursue. defense of 160 does, however, S.W.3d 573. recog- It The Texas Court of Criminal it, nize something very closely akin to states in being based on a diminished-capacity doc- judge the trial discretion to has deter- trine, being “simply this a failure-of-proof mine of whether evidence mental illness defense which the defendant claims that may presented to the element the prove State failed to that the defen- rea, of mens or whether the evidence dant had the state of mind at the grounds. on special should excluded of offense.” Id. admitted, If the trial such evidence is has judge additionally the discretion to Due to by the instruction the court sup- determine whether the evidence voir during dire that was not to ports instruc- a lesser-included-offense pursue deficiencies, the issue of his mental tion. (as and the court’s blanket refusal a mat law)
ter of to admit Jackson, evidence of this 160 at 574. S.W.3d type, content, whatever actual its there Obviously, if there is discretion showing was no of nature of the evi deny of rele entry trial court to produced dence which was to be nature, vant of that discre evidence concerning conclusions rea mens re tion have basis. That basis must some quired a capital murder case. There in the found considerations to take into fore, are not given opportunity we to account set out in Rule 403. Tex.R. compare ruling here with the speaks 403. When Jackson Evid. Jackson.3 whether instruc offense
However, in Mays’ presentation of to jury, tions are be submitted to a must, nature, by evidence which indicated that he kind of question he its arise forward, attempting put during guilt/innocence phase he states that a trial. object By his punishment phase was to show that he would have the time the Accordingly, the evidence showed that Jack- that he court determined did, indeed, rea, bodily possessed requisite son intend to cause serious mens undimin- brother, injury harm or to his the victim. ished his mental deficiencies. his effort which barred entered, ruling court’s it is then too late for a trial is concerning argument evidence and go present determine whether back and Mays’ mental status impact been convicted the which defendant should not have but, necessary charged ability form the upon he was crime which rather, Therefore, if a the offense with which for a lesser crime. rea to commit ability pursue a fail- charged; permission defendant has the he obtained he was upon consequence, a defen- ure-to-prove ruling. defense based As a appeal that defect, deficiency, or abnor- can dant’s mental from which we to be mality, that must be allowed trial errone- whether the court’s determine phase guilt/innocence Mays’ introduced substantially affected ruling ous trial; is not restricted precipitat- rights. This substantial punishment phase. Thus, necessarily plea. Mays’ guilty ed conviction. See Tex. contributed to his admissibility By deciding R.App. 44.2(b); P. Hale v. solely explicitly on the evidence based (Tex.App.-Fort Worth law, application an incorrect 2004, no pet.). necessarily abused its discretion. *5 controlling “As Mays’ to the determination conten- Accordingly, we sustain legal principles, an abuse oc of discretion tion of error. clearly curs if fails ana court remand judgment We reverse correctly. A trial lyze apply or the law pro- for further case to the trial court determining in court has discretion ceedings opinion. consistent law is to the applying
what the or law Thus, facts. a failure a trial court to Opinion by Concurring Justice analyze correctly or the law will CARTER. v. constitute an abuse of discretion.” State appears to establish The Jackson case Kurtz, 72, (Tex.Crim.App. 152 S.W.3d principles: two 2004) (footnotes (Holcomb, J., dissenting) (1) a defense Texas law does not include omitted). “A trial court no ‘discretion’ has (short that, impairment due to mental determining or applying what law is insanity), the defendant did not have DeShazo, the law to facts.” Huie v. the time of the of mens rea at requisite (Tex.1996). “Mis 922 S.W.2d 927-28 not have the because he or she does fense application of the law facts form that frame of mind. capacity to ever per case se abuse of discre is (Tex. 568, 574 v. 160 S.W.3d Ballard, tion.” State 987 S.W.2d Crim.App.2005); and (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Consequently, legal the trial court’s erroneous conclusion (2) impairment of mental Kurtz, 152 is an of discretion. abuse (short insanity) may be admissible and 81; Huie, 922 at 927-28. S.W.3d at negates if jury may it consider mens rea element. Id. find that the trial was in error court realm having excluded en tato the entire the Texas though Even in Jackson Mays’ of the matter of mental deficiencies acknowledged Appeals Criminal ability his to form the they relate to require did not a determina- to commit mur- necessary mens rea doctrine of diminished tion of whether the der. court set out capacity existed understanding law on the of the Texas plea fol- its guilty withdrew not (and Ap- subject. The Texas Court Criminal explicitly upon) the trial lowing based opined peals that it was proper to admit of mental impairment exclud- history evidence of the purpose during defendant’s men- ed for guilt/inno- tal illness to even though stage mens rea cence the trial. this murder the defendant not allege insanity. possible did A it is that evidence of lesser history disorder, of schizophrenia, bipolar may (i.e., charges have been homicide). paranoia However, manslaughter, negligent admissible. the court further held that the trial court of the trial excluding court all men- precluded properly from argu- tal illness evidence came before the trial ing jury to the it should find started or the had been selected. defendant did capacity not have the Consequently, not be could determined intentionally knowingly commit if charges How crime. are these determinations required. rec- were mental illness evi- Since onciled and applied at trial? The regarding dence least is relevant unambiguously may possible stated that one lesser offense mental argue that due impairment (recklessness, to mental requirements negli- he or incapable she forming gence), is of ever the neces- the trial court erred in the blanket sary requirement. However, mens rea exclusion.
since the court declared that evidence of majority I concur with opinion. (mental illness) impairment was ad- rea, to negate missible it is clear circumstances, in some proper. Perhaps the Texas Court of
Criminal intended to allow a de- *6 to attempt
fendant the mens rea
proof and show situ- ation, LANEY, Appellant, defendant fact did not form Deanna rea because (without impairment showing he or Texas, Appellee. STATE intent). she could never form such How- ever, we do not need to decipher the full No. 12-06-00170-CV. scope the Jackson In decision. purpose introducing one this evi- Tyler. request dence was to a lesser included charge that different mens rea April requirement.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
stated the trial court may determine
whether the mental illness evidence raises on a charge. issue Id. agreed the court that the evi- did
dence not raise lesser included of-
fense.
So, here, when the trial court stated that impairment,
evidence mental short of
insanity, crime, was not a defense However, here, correct. all