Is the Texas capital sentencing scheme unconstitutional for failing to provide for meaningful appellate review?
In his fourth point of error, the appellant contends that Texas’ capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because it does not permit meaningful appellate review. The appellant argues that, because the second special issue does not specify mitigating and aggravating factors, nor does it require jurors to make specific findings, an appellate court has no way of knowing what factors the jury considered in making its decision. Meaningful appellate review is therefore impossible, he claims. This court has repeatedly rejected this argument, (30) and we have said, “So long as the jury is not precluded from hearing and effectuating mitigating evidence, we have never regarded appellate review of mitigating evidence to be an essential component of a constitutionally acceptable capital punishment scheme.” (31) Point of error four is overruled. V. Is the death penalty as administered in Texas unconstitutional? In his fifth point of error, the appellant contends that Texas’s lethal-injection p
