Sonnier v. State
913 S.W.2d 511, 1995 WL 699923 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The circumstances and brutality of a capital offense may, by themselves, furnish sufficient probative evidence for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would commit future criminal acts of violence, constituting a continuing threat to society.
Facts:
- The appellant, Sonnier, had a history of stalking his neighbor, Melody Flowers, including accosting her with lewd comments and hiding in her bedroom closet on at least two occasions for hours.
- Melody Flowers had previously expressed fear of Sonnier to her boyfriend.
- On the afternoon of September 16, 1991, Melody Flowers and her two-year-old son, Patrick Flowers, were murdered in their apartment.
- Shortly after the murders, a neighbor saw Sonnier walking away from the apartment complex with a bloody towel wrapped around his hand and carrying a grocery bag.
- Sonnier returned to his apartment with a fresh cut on his hand, which he falsely claimed he had just sustained while slicing sausage.
- Police discovered a bloody towel and blouse belonging to Melody Flowers in a trash bag inside Sonnier's closet.
- In a nearby field, police found a grocery bag containing Sonnier's bloody clothes and shoes, along with a bloody cord used in the murder.
- DNA testing confirmed that blood found on one of Sonnier's socks from the bag matched the blood of Melody Flowers.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant Sonnier was tried for capital murder in a Texas state trial court.
- In February 1993, the jury found Sonnier guilty of the capital murder of Melody and Patrick Flowers.
- In the punishment phase, the jury answered 'yes' to the special issue asking if there was a probability that Sonnier would commit criminal acts of violence constituting a continuing threat to society.
- Pursuant to the jury's findings, the trial court sentenced Sonnier to death.
- Sonnier (appellant) filed a direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals against the State (appellee), raising thirteen points of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the evidence of the brutality of the offense alone, without any other evidence of prior violent acts or bad character, suffice to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant would commit future criminal acts of violence constituting a continuing threat to society?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyers, J.
Yes. The extreme brutality and violence of an offense can betray a 'most dangerous aberration of character' sufficient to support a jury's affirmative finding that the defendant is a continuing danger to society. The court reasoned that the circumstances of this offense—in which Sonnier stabbed, strangled, bludgeoned, and stomped Melody Flowers, and then murdered her two-year-old son—were so heinous that a rational jury could conclude Sonnier's rage is of such an 'uncontrollable and extreme nature' that he constitutes a future danger. The court rejected the argument that the legislature's removal of the 'deliberateness' special issue from the sentencing statute alters the precedent that the facts of the offense alone can support a finding of future dangerousness.
Concurring - Baird, J.
Concurring in the judgment. This opinion concurs with the majority's disposition of several points of error by referencing the reasoning articulated in prior concurring opinions in other cases, including Green v. State, Dinkins v. State, and Smith v. State. The author joins the remainder of the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the legal principle in Texas that the State does not need to present evidence of a defendant's prior criminal record or bad acts to prove future dangerousness in a capital case. It clarifies that even after statutory amendments removed the 'deliberateness' special issue, the sheer brutality of the crime itself can serve as the sole evidentiary basis for a jury's finding of a continuing threat. This holding lowers the State's burden in the penalty phase for first-time offenders who commit particularly heinous crimes, allowing prosecutors to rely entirely on the narrative and evidence of the charged offense to secure a death sentence.
