Saenz v. Texas
Appellant was indicted for five counts of aggravated assault and one count of capital murder. The first five counts of the indictment alleged aggravated assaults of five patients of a dialysis clinic who suffered adverse episodes but did not die. The sixth count charged her with capital murder by murdering more than one person during the same criminal transaction or during different criminal transactions but pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct. The jury acquitted the appellant on two of the aggravated assault charges. It found her guilty of three aggravated assaults and of capital murder. During closing arguments, the State told the jury, “The State has the burden of proof to prove that the Defendant caused the death of at least two of the five victims. You don’t have to agree as to which two.” Appellant argued for the first time on appeal that the language in the jury charge and the State’s closing argument allowed the jury to convict her of capital murder without agreeing on which two or more of the five named individuals were murdered by the appellant, violating the requirement that jury verdicts be unanimous. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to consider whether a jury charge on capital murder under Penal Code Section 19.03(a)(7) must require the jurors to agree as to the identities and the number of the victims. Upon review, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. View "Saenz v. Texas" on Justia Law