Cite as: 540 U. S. 668 (2004)
Opinion of Thomas, J.
[was] a probability that the defendant, Delma Banks, Jr., would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." App. 143 (the second special issue presented to the jury) (internal quotation marks omitted).
I do not believe that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have altered its finding. The jury was presented with the facts of a horrible crime. Banks, after meeting the victim, Richard Whitehead, a 16-year-old boy who had the misfortune of owning a car that Banks wanted, decided "to kill the person for the hell of it" and take his car. Banks v. State, 643 S. W. 2d 129, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 904 (1983). Banks proceeded to shoot Whitehead three times, twice in the head and once in the upper back. Banks fired one of the shots only 18 to 24 inches away from Whitehead. The jury was thus presented with evidence showing that Banks, apparently on a whim, executed Whitehead simply to get his car.
The jury was also presented with evidence, in the form of Banks' own testimony, that he was willing to abet another individual in obtaining a gun, with the full knowledge that this gun would aid future armed robberies. The colloquy between a prosecuting attorney and Banks makes it clear what Banks thought he was doing:
"Q: You were going to supply him [Farr] your gun so he could do armed robberies?
"A: No, not supply him my gun. A gun. "Q: In other words you didn't care if it was yours or whose, but you were going to be the man who got the gun to do armed robberies. Is that correct?
"A: He was going to do it. "Q: I understand, but you were going to supply him the means and possible death weapon in an armed robbery case. Is that correct?
"A: Yes." App. 137 (cross-examination of Banks).
707
Page: Index Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007