Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Court allows limited expert testimony about defendant's rap lyrics; jury rejects "sudden passion" and imposes 80-year sentence
Loading...
Summary
During the punishment phase the prosecution and defense disputed whether a rap song titled "The Race" could be used as evidence. The judge allowed the state to ask an expert about the lyrics, ruling the probative value outweighed prejudice. The jury found no "sudden passion" and sentenced the defendant to 80 years in prison with no fine.
A Bexar County jury on Wednesday rejected a defense claim of "sudden passion" and assessed an 80-year prison term against the defendant after hearing mitigation and victim-impact testimony and a contested hearing over admission of rap lyrics.
Judge Stephanie Boyd allowed the state to question the defense's expert about the defendant's song "The Race," concluding the potential probative value on the issue of flight and the defendant's state of mind outweighed prejudice. The judge said she had not previously heard the song and would review the evidence presented at the hearing before making any broader evidentiary rulings. "This is the way it's gonna be done," the judge told counsel when the state sought to ask the expert whether he had reviewed the music, the lyrics and the associated video.
Expert and lyrics: Dr. John Matthew Fabian testified he had listened to the song and viewed portions of the video but told the court on cross-examination that the song did not alter his mitigation opinion about the defendant's developmental history. On the record he said he had not been provided the disc by the defense and that he had learned of the song through public reporting. "No. It doesn't change your opinion one way or the other," Fabian said when asked whether the song altered his clinical conclusions.
Why the song mattered to prosecutors: Prosecutors argued the song and its video could be used to show the defendant's flight and state of mind; the song includes references prosecutors said tied to the defendant's movement after prior charges and to the pending cases. The defense urged the court to exclude the lyrics, citing the Court of Criminal Appeals's cautions about using artistic lyrics to prove conduct; defense counsel also pointed out that opening statements had already told jurors the defendant had removed an ankle monitor in a previous case.
Jury verdict and sentence: After closing arguments the jury unanimously answered the court's special issue in the negative: the defendant did not cause the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause. The jury then assessed punishment at 80 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with no fine. The judge ordered the 80-year sentence to run concurrent with a prior Tarrant County judgment referenced in the record and directed restitution to the victim's estate as part of the disposition.
Victim impact: A family member read a victim-impact statement describing the victim's life and the effect of his death on his family. "My son's life ended on 04/23/2017 at the age of 23," the speaker said. The court asked that victim-impact remarks be delivered with courtroom decorum and warned that disruptive outbursts would result in removal from the courtroom.
Ending: The court's evidentiary rulings on the song were narrow and focused on whether an expert who reviewed it could be questioned about it. The jury's sentencing decision followed standard deliberation procedures and included jury unanimity on the sudden-passion issue.
