Mosley v. State

In Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070, 143 L. Ed. 2d 550, 119 S. Ct. 1466 (1999), the Court broke ground in holding that victim impact and character evidence is relevant to the mitigation special issue at punishment in capital cases. But the Court took pains to note that it was relevant only to the mitigation issue: . . . victim impact and character evidence is relevant only insofar as it relates to the mitigation issue. Such evidence is patently irrelevant, for example, to a determination of future dangerousness. Id. The Court even went so far as to state that a capital defendant could avoid the State's presentation of victim-related evidence by affirmatively waiving reliance upon the mitigation issue: Victim-related evidence is relevant to show that the mitigating circumstances are not "sufficient" to warrant imposing a life sentence. Such evidence would be wholly irrelevant if appellant affirmatively waived submission and reliance upon the mitigation special issue. . . . A defendant can waive reliance upon and submission of the mitigation issue, and if he does, victim impact and character evidence would be irrelevant and hence inadmissible. Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 261. The defendant was not permitted to present evidence of victim's homosexuality on "assumption that jury would consider a homosexual a less valuable member of society" than other members of society The Court decided that victim impact evidence "is relevant only insofar as it relates to the mitigation issue." See Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 263. Mosley also decided that victim impact evidence "of which a defendant is aware at the time he commits the crime is necessarily relevant to his future dangerousness and moral culpability." See Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 261 fn 16.