Ex Parte English

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte English

642 S.W.2d 482, 1982 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1180

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 15, 1982

Docket68953

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 642 S.W.2d 482 (Ex Parte English) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte English, 642 S.W.2d 482, 1982 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1180 (Tex. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

DALLY, Judge.

This is a post-conviction application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to Article 11.-07, V.A.C.C.P. The applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder with the penalty of death. The conviction was affirmed by this Court; English v. State, 592 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 891, 101 S.Ct. 254, 66 L.Ed.2d 120 (1981).

The applicant now asserts that his privilege against self-incrimination and the right to effective assistance of counsel were violated when psychiatric testimony was admitted at the punishment stage of his trial. The trial court has made specific findings of fact, which are supported by the record, that the applicant before a pretrial psychiatric examination was not informed that he did not have to participate and that he could remain silent, that his statements and the psychiatric testimony based on the examination could be used at the punishment stage of his trial. Also, the applicant’s counsel were not notified in advance that the psychiatric examination was being made to prepare the psychiatrist to testify on the issue of the applicant’s dangerousness.

The Supreme Court’s holding in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981) requires the reversal of the judgment in this case. See also Ex parte Demouehette, 633 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Clark v. State, 627 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) affirmed on rehearing following the Governor’s commutation of sentence; Thompson v. State, 621 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Fields v. State, 627 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).

The psychiatrist’s testimony and opinion in this case was based on his examination of the applicant. The hypothetical questions propounded to the witness also incorporated the witness’ own examination and findings concerning the applicant. Cf. Vanderbilt v. State, 629 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).

The relief sought will be granted.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

DALLY, Judge.

This is a post-conviction application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to Article 11.-07, V.A.C.C.P. The applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder with the penalty of death. The conviction was affirmed by this Court; English v. State, 592 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 891, 101 S.Ct. 254, 66 L.Ed.2d 120 (1981).

The applicant now asserts that his privilege against self-incrimination and the right to effective assistance of counsel were violated when psychiatric testimony was admitted at the punishment stage of his trial. The trial court has made specific findings of fact, which are supported by the record, that the applicant before a pretrial psychiatric examination was not informed that he did not have to participate and that he could remain silent, that his statements and the psychiatric testimony based on the examination could be used at the punishment stage of his trial. Also, the applicant’s counsel were not notified in advance that the psychiatric examination was being made to prepare the psychiatrist to testify on the issue of the applicant’s dangerousness.

The Supreme Court’s holding in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981) requires the reversal of the judgment in this case. See also Ex parte Demouehette, 633 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Clark v. State, 627 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) affirmed on rehearing following the Governor’s commutation of sentence; Thompson v. State, 621 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Fields v. State, 627 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).

The psychiatrist’s testimony and opinion in this case was based on his examination of the applicant. The hypothetical questions propounded to the witness also incorporated the witness’ own examination and findings concerning the applicant. Cf. Vanderbilt v. State, 629 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).

The relief sought will be granted.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 S.W.2d 482, 1982 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-english-texcrimapp-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack