future dangerousness inquiry in Texas

2007Rather, Johnson argued that "the future dangerousness inquiry did not allow the jury to take account of how [his youth] bore upon his personal culpability.” Id.

2007Rather, Johnson argued that "the future dangerousness inquiry did not allow the jury to take account of how [his youth] bore upon his personal culpability." Id.

2025See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 274–76 (1976); Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 297 ; see also Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 440 (2008) (recognizing Court’s prior holding that Texas statute’s inquiry into defendant’s future dangerousness meets State’s obligation to ensure individualized sentencing in capital murder cases).

2007The Court disagreed and stated, "If any jurors believed that the transient qualities of petitioner's youth made him less culpable for the murder, there is no reasonable likelihood that those jurors would have deemed themselves foreclosed from considering and evaluating petitioner's future-dangerousness." Id. at 370 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [54] Id. at 371 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [55] Id. at 371-72 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. at 493, 110 S.Ct. 1257 ). [56] Id. at 372 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [57] Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [58] Lockett v. Ohio,

2025See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 274–76 (1976); Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 297 ; see also Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 440 (2008) (recognizing Court’s prior holding that Texas statute’s inquiry into defendant’s future dangerousness meets State’s obligation to ensure individualized sentencing in capital murder cases).

2012When reviewing a legal-sufficiency challenge to a jury’s finding of future dangerousness, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to 65 See, e.g., Hunter v. State, 243 S.W.3d 664, 674 (Tex. Crim.

2010In point of error sixteen, appellant alleges that the “10/12 rule” violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.134 In point of error seventeen, appellant alleges that the future dangerousness inquiry results in the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.135 In point of error eighteen, appellant argues that the future dangerousness scheme violates the Texas constitutional proscription against cruel or unusual punishment.136 In point of error nineteen, appellant comp

2010App. 1998). 134 Smith v. State, 297 S.W.3d 260, 278 (Tex. Crim.

2007The Court disagreed and stated, "If any jurors believed that the transient qualities of petitioner's youth made him less culpable for the murder, there is no reasonable likelihood that those jurors would have deemed themselves foreclosed from considering and evaluating petitioner's future-dangerousness." Id. at 370 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [54] Id. at 371 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [55] Id. at 371-72 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. at 493, 110 S.Ct. 1257 ). [56] Id. at 372 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [57] Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [58] Lockett v. Ohio,

2007The Court disagreed and stated, "If any jurors believed that the transient qualities of petitioner's youth made him less culpable for the murder, there is no reasonable likelihood that those jurors would have deemed themselves foreclosed from considering and evaluating petitioner's future-dangerousness." Id. at 370 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [54] Id. at 371 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [55] Id. at 371-72 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. at 493, 110 S.Ct. 1257 ). [56] Id. at 372 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 . [57] Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [58] Lockett v. Ohio,

2000XXXIII, at 50 (emphasis added). [30] The future dangerousness special issue asks jurors "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Art. 37.071 § 2(b)(1). [31] The future dangerousness instruction is now article 37.071 section 2(b)(1). [32] See Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [33] Id. [34] The robbery and attempted possession of a deadly weapon offenses were committed in New York. [35] There were questions at trial about a second knife missing from the butcher block in t

2000XXXIII, at 50 (emphasis added). [30] The future dangerousness special issue asks jurors "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Art. 37.071 § 2(b)(1). [31] The future dangerousness instruction is now article 37.071 section 2(b)(1). [32] See Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [33] Id. [34] The robbery and attempted possession of a deadly weapon offenses were committed in New York. [35] There were questions at trial about a second knife missing from the butcher block in t

2000XXXIII, at 50 (emphasis added). [30] The future dangerousness special issue asks jurors "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Art. 37.071 § 2(b)(1). [31] The future dangerousness instruction is now article 37.071 section 2(b)(1). [32] See Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [33] Id. [34] The robbery and attempted possession of a deadly weapon offenses were committed in New York. [35] There were questions at trial about a second knife missing from the butcher block in t

2000XXXIII, at 50 (emphasis added). [30] The future dangerousness special issue asks jurors "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Art. 37.071 § 2(b)(1). [31] The future dangerousness instruction is now article 37.071 section 2(b)(1). [32] See Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [33] Id. [34] The robbery and attempted possession of a deadly weapon offenses were committed in New York. [35] There were questions at trial about a second knife missing from the butcher block in t

2000XXXIII, at 50 (emphasis added). [30] The future dangerousness special issue asks jurors "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Art. 37.071 § 2(b)(1). [31] The future dangerousness instruction is now article 37.071 section 2(b)(1). [32] See Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [33] Id. [34] The robbery and attempted possession of a deadly weapon offenses were committed in New York. [35] There were questions at trial about a second knife missing from the butcher block in t