Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

527 S.W.2d 310

Ex Parte Wilson

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided September 23, 1975

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1975-09-23

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and (2) in cases in which the jury charge at the guilt or innocence phase permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under sections 7.01 and 7.02, Penal Code, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Ex Parte Lackey, Angleton v. State

““The Constitution of the State of Texas, Art. 1, Sec. 11, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 1.07, both provide that all prisoners are entitled to bail except those charged with a capital offense ‘when the proof is evident.’ “The term ‘proof is evident’ means that the evidence is clear and strong, leading a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense of capital murder has been committed; that the accused is the guilty party; and that the accused will not only be convicted but that the jury will return findings which will require a sentence of death. “The burden of proof is on the State to establish that the proof is evident. * * “It is the firmly established policy of this Court to refrain from setting out the facts in detail or commenting on the sufficiency of the evidence since the case has not yet been tried on the merits. “The decision of the trial judge that the proof was evident is entitled to weight on appeal, but it is the duty of this Court to examine the evidence and to determine for ourselves if bail was properly denied.””

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Ex Parte Mitchell, Ex Parte Davis

Relies on Jurek v. State · Ex Parte Sierra · 167 Tex. Crim. 409 - Ex Parte Thrash

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-09-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Simpson v. Owens (2004), Ex Parte Davis (1976)

25 state decisions

9019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

BROWN, Commissioner.

¶2These are appeals from an order of the CAninal District Court of Jefferson County denying appellants’ applications for a writ of habeas corpus and refusing the appellants’ applications for bail. Appellant Charles Elton Wilson and appellant Chris Phillip Kibbe both stand indicted for the offense of capital murder.

¶3The Constitution of the State of Texas, Art. 1, Sec. 11, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 1.07, both provide that all prisoners are entitled to bail except those charged with a capital offense “when the proof is evident.”

¶4The term “proof is evident” means that the evidence is clear and strong, leading a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense of capital murder has been committed; that the accused is the guilty party; and that the accused will not only be convicted but that the jury will return findings which will require a sentence of death. Ex parte Sierra, 514 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Ex parte Forbes, 474 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Short, 462 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex parte Colbert, 452 S.W.2d 454 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ex parte Collins, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 330 S.W.2d 194; Ex parte Thrash, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 409, 320 S.W.2d 357; Ex parte Washburn, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 651, 280 S.W.2d 257; Ex parte Roberts, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 547, 209 S.W.2d 361; Ex parte Suger, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 133, 192 S.W.2d 159; Ex parte Shults, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 77 S.W.2d 877. See generally 7 Tex.Jur.2d, Rev., Part 2, Bail and Recognizance, Secs. 16-22.

¶5The burden of proof is on the State to establish that the proof is evident. Ex parte Sierra, supra;Ex parte Forbes, supra;Ex parte Short, supra;Ex parte Paul, 420 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). The State must introduce evidence that the jury would not only convict the accused, but would return findings which would require a sentence of death. Ex parte Sierra, supra; see Art. 37.071, V.A.C.C.P.

¶6It is the firmly established policy of this Court to refrain from setting out the facts in detail or commenting on the sufficiency of the evidence since the case has not yet been tried on the merits. Ex parte Sierra, supra;Ex parte Paul, supra.

¶7The decision of the trial judge that the proof was evident is entitled to weight on appeal, but it is the duty of this Court to examine the evidence and to determine for ourselves if bail was properly denied. Ex parte Hickox, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 139, 233 S.W. 1100.

¶8The record before us reflects that the body of Frank Graffagnino was found buried in a shallow grave in a wooded area of Jefferson County in mid May, 1975. An examination of the body disclosed bruises, a fractured leg, and fractured ribs. The cause of death was suffocation resulting from the aspiration of the stomach contents.

¶9The State introduced evidence that would link the appellants to the death of Frank Graffagnino. The record could circumstantially support the State’s allegations of kidnapping. Motive is shown by an affidavit that indicates that the deceased was having an affair with the wife of the appellant Kibbe.

¶10In order for the sentence of death to be imposed, there must first be a conviction of capital murder. The State must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) The conduct of the accused that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation the death of the deceased or another would result; (2) There is a probability that the accused would commit criminal acts of vio*312lence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; (3) If raised by the evidence, that the conduct of the accused in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased. Jurek v. State, 522 S.W.2d 934 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).

¶11We have carefully reviewed the record before us and cannot conclude that the proof is “evident” that the jury would answer the required questions in the affirmative as required by Art. 37.071, V.A.C. C.P.

¶12The judgment of the trial court in denying bail to the appellants is reversed. Appellant Charles Elton Wilson is granted bail in the sum of $20,000.00. The appellant Chris Phillip Kibbe is granted bail in the sum of $40,000.00.

¶13Opinion approved by the Court.

/527/sw2d/310 · .json · Public domain