On December 10, 2008 the Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral argument in the following case:
PD-0891-08, Luis Noe Barrios v. State, a capital murder case out of Harris County.
Appellant's opening argument. (Charles Hinton)
The States response. (Dan McCrory)
Appellant's rebuttal.
Ever argue to the jury that they have to decide the greater offense before they consider the lesser? That's the issue in this case. You can read the underlying opinion here.
AP-75,633, Howard Paul Guidry v. State, a capital murder out of Harris County.
Appellant's opening argument. (Terrence Gaiser)
The State's response. (Kevin Keating)
Appellant's rebuttal.
Does the use in one trial of an impermissibly obtained confession that leads to a conviction and the admission by a mitigation expert at punishment that the defendant had admitted the crime to that expert impermissibly taint the State's use of that expert's testimony about the defendant's admission in the re-trial of that case after appellate reversal? Did you find that question hard to follow? You may feel that way about Appellant's argument. Judge Johnson seemed to feel perplexed. This is a death penalty case so there's no underlying opinion.
AP-75,677, Richard Lee Tabler v. State, a capital murder out of Bell County.
Appellant's opening argument. (Karyl Krug)
The State's response. (Bob Odom)
Appellant's rebuttal.
Here, Tabler complained that the prosecutor's argument to the jury that there had to be a nexus between the mitigation evidence and the crime that Tabler had been convicted of for the evidence to be truly mitigating. Moreover, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to those arguments. To make matters more interesting, Tabler has also apparently written many letters to his attorney and at least one to the Court asking to waive everything (and essentially be executed as soon as possible). As this is a death penalty case, there is no underlying opinion.
AP-75,706, Douglas Tyrone Armstrong v. State, a capital murder out of Hidalgo County.
Appellant's opening argument. (O. Rene Flores)
The State's response. (Theodore C. Hake)
Appellant's rebuttal.
Armstrong complained that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring more mitigation evidence and that the trial court should have granted a continuance to give trial counsel more time to investigate for more mitigation evidence. The Court seems a little concerned about how to frame the issue, as a denied motion for continuance, a denied motion for new trial, or ineffective assistance for failure to investigate. There is no underlying opinoin because this is a death penalty case.
I apologize for the delay, but there are a lot of behind the scenes logistics involved. There will always be delay, but I'll work on shortening it in the future.
