*125 CLINTON, Judge, dissenting. Given the facial narrowness of Article 37.071(b)(2), V.A.C.C.P. 1 it is certainly not specious to argue, as did appellant, that we cannot be certain that the jury reached its decision with due consideration to whatever mitigating circumstances appellant could proffer. Yet, Judge McCormick’s reply…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.