Murderpedia

 

 

Juan Ignacio Blanco  

 

  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

 

 

 
   

Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.

   

 

 

Angel Maturino RESENDIZ

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 


A.K.A.: "Railroad Killer"
 
Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Rape - Robbery
Number of victims: 15
Date of murders: 1986-1999
Date of arrest: July 13, 1999 (surrenders)
Date of birth: August 1, 1960
Victims profile: Men and women
Method of murder: Stabbing with knife - Beating
Location: Texas/Illinois/Florida/Kentucky/California/Georgia, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in Texas on June 27, 2006
 
 
 
 
 
 
photo gallery 1 photo gallery 2
 
photo gallery 3 photo gallery 4
 
 
 
 
 
 
victims
 
 
 
 
 
 

Summary:

Eight days before Christmas in 1998, Resendiz sneaked into the upscale home of Dr. Claudia Benton in the Houston enclave of West University Place, just down the street from a railroad track.

Resendiz attacked the sleeping woman, raping her, stabbing her 39 times with a butcher knife, and then beating her to death with a 2 foot tall bronze statue. Resendiz took the victim's cash and fled the scene in the victim's jeep.

This murder is among eight in Texas linked to Resendiz, who became known as the "Railroad Killer." Two were tied to him in Illinois and two in Florida, and one each in Kentucky, California and Georgia.

Citations:

Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (Direct Appeal)

Final Meal:

Declined.

Final Words:

"I want to ask if it is in your heart to forgive me. You don't have to. I know I allowed the devil to rule my life. I just ask you to forgive me and ask the Lord to forgive me for allowing the devil to deceive me. I thank God for having patience with me. I don't deserve to cause you pain. You did not deserve this. I deserve what I am getting." Before drawing his final breath, the killer, who claimed to be Jewish, prayed in Hebrew and Spanish.

ClarkProsecutor.org

 
 

Texas Department of Corrections

Inmate: Resendiz, Angel Maturino
Date of Birth: 8/1/60
TDCJ#: 999356
Date Received: 5/24/00
Education: 7 years
Occupation: laborer
Date of Offense: 12/17/98
County of Conviction: Harris
Race: Hispanic
Gender: Male
Hair Color: Black
Eye Color: Brown
Height: 5 ft 06 in
Weight: 190

Prior Record: Florida Department of Corrections #73584 on a 20 year sentence for Burglary, vehicle theft, and aggravated assault (on an hispanic male with a knife), paroled 8/27/1985; FCI #35285-079 on 18 month sentence for Immigration Illegal Re-entry and False Representation to be a Citizen, discharged to detainer in 1987; FCI on 30 month sentence for False Statement to USINS and Use of Alias with Intent to Induce a Passport, discharged to detainer in 1991 to New Mexico State Prison; New Mexico State Prison #41648 on 18 month sentence for Residential Burglary, paroled 4/3/1993

 
 

Texas Attorney General

Media Advisory

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Angel Resendiz Scheduled For Execution

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offers the following information about Angel Maturino Resendiz, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 27, 2006.

On May 24, 2000, Angel Maturino Resendiz was sentenced to die for the capital murder of Dr. Claudia Benton. A summary of the evidence presented at trial and during postconviction proceedings follows.

FACTS OF THE CRIME

On Dec.17, 1998, Angel Resendiz broke into Dr. Benton’s West University Place home and stabbed and beat her to death. Resendiz also attempted to sexually assault Dr. Benton.

Resendiz took the victim’s money and left the home in the victim’s vehicle. Resendiz is believed to have committed a series of murders throughout Texas and other states.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

  • May 2000 — A jury found Angel Resendiz guilty of capital murder, and he was sentenced to death.

  • May 21, 2003 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.

  • Dec. 9 , 2003 – Resendiz filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • May 3, 2004 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied Resendiz’s petition for writ of certiorari.

  • May 4, 2004 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Resendiz’s application for state habeas corpus relief.

  • May 3, 2005 – Resendiz filed an application for federal habeas relief in U.S. District Court.

  • Sept. 7 ,2005 – The U.S. District Court denied relief and entered final judgment.

  • Nov. 15, 2005 – Resendiz filed a motion to reopen the time to file notice of appeal, or in the alternative, a request to extend the time to file notice of appeal.

  • June 7, 2006 – The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Resendiz's appeal.

PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY

During the punishment phase of his trial, the jury heard evidence of numerous other murders committed by Resendiz. Holly Dunn testified that in August of 1997, Resendiz approached her and Christopher Maier near some railroad tracks in Lexington, Kentucky. Resendiz robbed Dunn and Maier. He then bound Maier’s hands and feet and gagged him. Resendiz picked up a large object and beat Maier in the head with it, crushing his skull.

After murdering Maier, Resendiz sexually assaulted Dunn. He then hit her in the head with a large object and left the scene. Dunn survived, but suffered multiple facial fractures and the trauma of the sexual assault.

In October of 1998, Resendiz broke into the home of 87-year-old Leafie Mason in Hughes Springs, Texas. Resendiz killed Mason by hitting her in the head with an iron. In May of 1999, Resendiz traveled to Weimar, Texas, and beat Skip and Karen Sirnic to death with a sledge hammer while they slept in their home. He also sexually assaulted Karen Sirnic.

In June of 1999, Resendiz broke into Noemi Dominguez’s home, sexually assaulted her, and killed her with a pickax. Resendiz stole Dominguez’s car and traveled to Schulenberg, Texas, where he killed 73-year-old Josephine Konvicka with the same pickax used on Dominguez. Resendiz left the pickax embedded in Konvicka’s head.

Also in June of 1999, Resendiz unlawfully entered 80-year-old George Morber’s home in Gorham, Illinois. Morber’s daughter, Carolyn Frederick, was with Morber when Resendiz broke in. Resendiz tied Morber to a chair and shot him in the back of the head with a shotgun.

Resendiz then sexually assaulted Frederick and struck her in the head with the shotgun with such force that the shotgun broke into two pieces. Neither Morber nor Frederick survived.

 
 

'Railroad killer' offers apology at execution

Maturino Resendiz asks for forgiveness: 'I deserve what I am getting'

By Alan Turner - Houston Chronicle

June 27, 2006

HUNTSVILLE - Angel Maturino Resendiz, the serial killer who claimed he was half-man, half-angel and could not be killed, was executed here Tuesday for the December 1998 murder of West University Place physician Claudia Benton.

Maturino Resendiz, 46, who killed as many as 14 people as he criss-crossed the nation by rail and in the process came to be known as the "railroad killer," was the 13th person to be executed in Texas this year.

As execution witnesses — members of his family and those of four of his victims — filled the tiny chambers set aside for them, the killer nodded toward them and apologized for his crimes. "I want to ask if it is in your heart to forgive me," Maturino Resendiz said in a quiet voice. "You don't have to. I know I allowed the devil to rule my life. I just ask you to forgive me and ask the Lord to forgive me for allowing the devil to deceive me. "I thank God for having patience with me. I don't deserve to cause you pain. You did not deserve this. I deserve what I am getting."

Before drawing his final breath, the killer, who claimed to be Jewish, prayed in Hebrew and Spanish.

George Benton, husband of the doctor who was repeatedly stabbed and bludgeoned in the family's home, lashed out at the killer, the Mexican government, which had supported his appeals, and opponents of the death penalty.

Maturino Resendiz, he charged in a voice trembling with emotion, "looked like a man ... and walked like a man. But what lived within that skin was not a human being."

Benton said that every Mexican citizen should "feel denigrated" by their government's effort to save the killer's life, and accused death penalty opponents of failing to comprehend the nature of evil. They could not, he said, understand the pain of telling one's children their mother had been murdered.

Claudia Benton was compassionate, her husband said, and would have aided Maturino Resendiz with food, money or advice had he simply knocked on her door and asked.

The Mexican government, which opposes capital punishment, was "especially cynical" in urging that Maturino Resendiz be imprisoned for life rather than be executed. The killer, Benton said, was a "diseased human."

'Forgive me, Lord'

As witnesses to the execution filed into the cramped viewing rooms separated from the death chamber by Plexiglas and bars, Maturino Resendiz chanted softly, "Forgive me, Lord."

The lethal drugs were administered at 7:58 p.m. Maturino Resendiz was declared dead seven minutes later.

Maturino Resendiz's execution was delayed 58 minutes as the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated over a number of issues surrounding his case, including the humaneness of lethal injection and the killer's competency to be executed.

Last week, state District Judge William Harmon ruled that Maturino Resendiz was competent to be executed because he knew when and why he would be killed.

In addition to Benton, other victims' relatives present to witness the execution included Josephine Konvicka's son, Karen Sirnic's brother and an Illinois man who was George Morber's grandson and Carolyn Frederick's son.

Konvicka, 73, was killed with a pickax at her Schulenburg home; Weimar resident Sirnic and her minister husband, Norman, were killed with a sledgehammer; Morber was fatally shot and Frederick was beaten to death with the firearm. Maturino Resendiz's mother, brother and sister also witnessed his death.

As the hour of the planned execution approached, Maturino Resendiz, who claimed he was an avenging angel and that he could not be killed, visited with his 7-year-old daughter and his mother. Then he was taken from death row in Livingston to a holding cell here. Prison spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said he appeared calm. The killer declined a last meal.

Unfair treatment claimed

Maturino Resendiz's lawyer Jack Zimmermann said Tuesday that the killer's case never received effective federal review.

In late 2005, Leslie Ribnik, Maturino Resendiz's court-appointed attorney, failed to appeal a federal judge's ruling denying a writ of habeas corpus. At that juncture, the Mexican government, which opposes capital punishment, hired Zimmermann to handle the case.

Zimmermann said his client did not receive fair treatment in the state's criminal justice system. "This is a deadly serious thing," Zimmermann said. "When we say the rule of law doesn't apply because you are not a U.S. citizen, when we say it doesn't apply because you've admitted killing people, then the rule of law doesn't apply to all of us."

Zimmermann also contended that his client was schizophrenic and not competent to be executed. "From the beginning," Zimmermann said of last week's competency hearing, "I said that if Maturino Resendiz was sane, then certainly in my judgment, he qualified for the death penalty. But if he's not, then we should enforce the law and not bow to public pressure. I don't think we got the right results."

During the hearing, experts testified that Maturino Resendiz did not believe the state could kill him.

After the lethal drugs were administered, he said, he would enter suspended animation for three days before appearing in a new body in the Middle East to battle Israel's enemies.

Insanity claim challenged

Mayor Bill White's crime victims advocate Andy Kahan called Maturino Resendiz a "cold-blooded, diabolical, brutal serial killer who richly deserves his ultimate punishment."

Kahan challenged assertions that Maturino Resendiz was insane, noting that the killer shrewdly attempted to profit from his notoriety. "Within weeks of being taken into custody," Kahan said, "he began trying to use his ill-gotten fame." At one point, Kahan said, Maturino Resendiz declined to sell his autographs for less than $50.

Kahan argued that the killer knew the difference between right and wrong, and had the mental acuity to devise dozens of aliases and elude law enforcement officers for months.

David Atwood, director of Texas Coalition to Abolish the death penalty, countered that Maturino Resendiz is a "severely mentally disturbed person" who should be locked up for the rest of his life. "But," Atwood said in a written statement, "executing Resendiz accomplishes nothing for the citizens of this state."

Counting Maturino Resendiz, Atwood wrote, Texas has executed 368 killers since 1982, when executions here were resumed. "The only thing they have done," he said, "is help politicians get elected and satisfy the cries for vengeance from some of its citizens."

 
 

Railroad killer is put to death for a 1998 slaying

By Michael Graczyk - Fort Worth Star-Telegram

AP - Wed, Jun. 28, 2006

HUNTSVILLE -- Train-hopping serial killer Angel Maturino Resendiz, linked to at least 15 indiscriminate slayings near railroad tracks across the country, said he deserved what he was getting and asked for forgiveness before he was executed Tuesday night.

Resendiz, 46, mumbled a prayer, saying, "Lord, forgive me. Lord, forgive me" as he waited for the execution to proceed. His feet nervously moved under a white sheet partially covering him.

He acknowledged relatives watching through a nearby window and then turned and looked toward the victims' relatives in another room. "I want to ask if it is in your heart to forgive me," he said in English, looking toward the relatives of some of his victims. "You don't have to. I know I allowed the devil to rule my life. I just ask you to forgive me and ask the Lord to forgive me for allowing the devil to deceive me. "I thank God for having patience for me. You did not deserve this. I deserve what I am getting." He then said a prayer in Spanish. He was pronounced dead at 8:05 p.m.

The Mexican drifter known as the "railroad killer" was executed for killing Houston physician Claudia Benton in late 1998. But Resendiz's killings began with a murder in San Antonio in 1986 and ended in June 1999 with a double slaying in Illinois.

For a while, he was on the FBI's Most Wanted list as authorities searched for a killer who slipped across the U.S. border and roamed the country by freight train.

Benton's death is among eight in Texas linked to Resendiz. Two were tied to him in Illinois and two in Florida, and one each in Kentucky, California and Georgia.

Benton, 39, was stabbed with a kitchen knife, hit 19 times with a 2-foot-tall bronze statue and raped in her home eight days before Christmas in 1998 in the Houston enclave of West University Place, just down the street from a railroad track.

Her husband, George Benton, returned to the state to witness Resendiz's death. Resendiz, who had appeared in court last week with a long beard and long hair, was clean-shaven Tuesday night.

The start of the execution was delayed almost two hours while the U.S. Supreme Court considered several last-day appeals. The court rejected the appeals at 7:25 p.m.

Resendiz's lead appeals attorney, Jack Zimmermann, had argued that Resendiz, who described himself as half-man and half-angel, told psychiatrists that he couldn't be executed because he didn't believe he could die.

The court also rejected an appeal by the Houston-based consul general of Mexico questioning Resendiz's competency and challenging the constitutionality of the lethal injection process as cruel and unusual punishment. Capital punishment is not practiced in Mexico.

 
 

Texas executes "Railroad Killer" for 1998 murder

Reuters News

Jun 27, 2006

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (Reuters) - A diminutive Mexican serial killer who murdered victims in their homes near railroads as he train-hopped across the United States, was executed by lethal injection in a Texas prison on Tuesday for the 1998 slaying of a Houston medical researcher.

Dubbed the 'Railroad Killer," Angel Maturino Resendiz, 45, was condemned for the rape and murder of Dr. Claudia Benton, 39, in her suburban Houston home on December 17, 1998.

Police said Resendiz sneaked into Benton's home after midnight and attacked the sleeping woman, raping her, stabbing her and then beating her to death with a statue.

The crime scene, described as horrific by experienced homicide detectives, was said to be emblematic of Resendiz's attacks, which claimed at least 13 victims, including three others in Texas between 1997 and 1999.

At his 2000 trial for Benton's murder, Resendiz pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He claimed he was half-human and half-angel and was waging a war against evil.

In the weeks leading up to his execution, Resendiz's lawyers argued in courts he should not be put to death because he is insane and believed he would be resurrected after his execution to continue his campaign against evil.

Resendiz's execution was delayed on Tuesday night until the U.S. Supreme Court rejected last-minute appeals.

While strapped to a gurney in the death chamber, Resendiz sought forgiveness. "I want to ask if it is in your heart to forgive me," he said. "You don't have to. I know I allowed the devil to rule my life. I just ask you to forgive me and ask the Lord to forgive me for allowing the devil to deceive me."

Resendiz was the 13th person executed in Texas this year and the 368th put to death since the state resumed capital punishment in 1982, six years after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a national death penalty ban, a total that leads the nation. Resendiz made no final meal request. Texas has 12 more executions scheduled through October.

 
 

Execution draws media, protesters to ‘Walls’ Unit

By Matt Peterson - Huntsville Item

June 28, 2006

Opponents of the death penalty came to the Huntsville “Walls” Unit on Tuesday evening to protest the execution of Angel Maturino Resendiz, but they were practically outnumbered by the amount of media from around the state covering the controversial case.

Gregory Compean, owner of Compean Funeral Home in Houston, was handling Resendiz’s funeral services. Compean has done so for other inmates, but said the coverage of this execution has brought more media than he had seen before. “This is probably a little heavier than the last time, because of the notoriety of Mr. Resendiz,” he said.

News vans from network TV stations in Houston, as well as KBTX Channel 3 from College Station, WOAI Channel 4 from San Antonio and KEYE Channel 43 and KTBC Channel 7 in Austin were parked near the “Walls” Unit and 15 news cameras were ready to capture footage of the families walking to and from the unit.

Dennis Longmire, a Huntsville resident who regularly protests capital punishment outside of the “Walls” Unit said he has seen this kind of a response before, but only in the most high-profile cases. “There have been a couple, like Karla Faye Tucker and Gary Graham and those highly publicized media events,” Longmire said. “What’s unique about this is that there are five or six broadcast media trucks and only about 30 people on the corner. Usually there would be a lot more of a crowd.”

Compean also noticed there were fewer people protesting than might be expected for such a high-profile case. “This is the fourth one I have been at, and it seems rather calm compared to the last couple I was at,” he said. “There doesn’t seem to be as many people, but I guess the heat has something to do with that.”

Whether there are five people, 30 people or 100 people protesting, those who are there are hoping their voices will make a difference in the current system.

Patrick Williams, who drove from College Station to protest the execution, said it is important to recognize the value of all lives. “It’s really about promoting the culture of life,” he said.

 
 

ProDeathPenalty.com

Serial killer Angel Maturino Resendiz, also called the Railway Killer, was an illegal immigrant from Mexico who wandered the country on trains to commit his crimes and facilitate his getaways.

He evaded capture for a considerable time, having no fixed addresses, and making undocumented international transit between Mexico, the United States, and Canada until he was captured.

On March 23, 1997 in Ocala, Florida, Jesse Howell, 19, was bludgeoned to death with an air hose coupling and left beside some railroad tracks. His fiance,16-year-old Wendy VonHuben was raped, strangled, suffocated and buried in a shallow grave approximately 30 miles away in We Hope, Florida.

Christopher Maier of Lexington, Kentucky was bludgeoned to death on August 29, 1997 by Resendiz. Resendiz also raped and severely beat Christopher's girlfriend, who nearly died as a result. Christopher was 21 years old. He was a University of Kentucky student who was walking along nearby railroad tracks with his girlfriend when the two were attacked by Resendiz.

On October 4, 1998, in Hughes Spring, Texas, Leafie Mason, 81, was hammered to death with a fire iron by Resendiz, who entered her home through a window. Her house was right in front of the railroad tracks.

Claudia Benton, 39 was a doctor in Houston who worked with children. On December 17, 1998, Claudia was raped, stabbed, and bludgeoned repeatedly after she entered her home, which was near the train tracks. Police found her Jeep Cherokee in San Antonio and found Resendiz's fingerprints on the steering column.

Norman J. Sirnic, 46, and Karen Sirnic, 47, were bludgeoned to death on May 2, 1999, by a sledgehammer. The murders occurred in a parsonage of the United Church of Christ in Weimar, Texas where Norman was the pastor.

The building was located adjacent to a railroad. The Sirnics' red Mazda was also found in San Antonio three weeks later, and fingerprints linked their case with the Claudia Benton case.

Noemi Dominguez, a 26-year-old schoolteacher in Houston, was bludgeoned to death in her apartment near some railroad tracks on June 4, 1999. Seven days later, her white Honda Civic was discovered by state troopers on the International Bridge in Del Rio, Texas.

Resendiz's next known victim was Josephine Konvicka, 73 years old. On June 4, 1999, Josephine was killed by the blow of a pointed garden tool on the head while she lay sleeping in her home.

Her farmhouse was not far from Weimar. Resendiz attempted to steal her car but was unable to take it since he could not find the car keys.

On June 15, 1999, Resendiz showed up far from Texas, in Gorham, Illinois. Resendiz shot George Morber, Sr., 80, in the head with a shotgun and then clubbed Carolyn Frederick, 52, to death.

Their house was located only 100 yards away from a railroad line. Later, a witness saw a man matching Resendiz's description driving Carolyn Frederick's red pickup truck 60 miles south of the murder scene, in Cairo, Illinois.

In an effort to find the killer, police tracked down Resendiz's sister, Manuela. Manuela feared that her brother might kill someone else or be killed by the FBI, so she agreed to help.

A Texas Ranger named Drew Carter, accompanied by Manuela and a spiritual advisor met with Resendiz on a bridge connecting El Paso, Texas, with Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. Resendiz surrendered to him. The state of Texas tried Resendiz for the murder of Dr. Claudia Benton.

He was found guilty and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. There could be many additional murders that Resendiz committed that were never tied to him.

 
 

Ángel Reséndiz, TX - June 27

Do Not Execute Angel Resendiz!

Democracyinaction.org

Ángel Maturino Reséndiz is scheduled to be executed on June 27 for the murder of Claudia Benton. Reséndiz allegedly was waiting in Benton’s Harris County home on the evening of December 17, 1998.

When Benton entered the house, Reséndiz is alleged to have raped, stabbed, and bludgeoned her to death.

Though Reséndiz has admitted to a series of more than 10 murders, he is no less entitled to due process than a defendant who claims to be entirely innocent.

As Reséndiz is a Mexican citizen, his native country’s government hired a lawyer for him after his first lawyer failed to file an appeal with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals before the deadline. Due to the case’s unusual circumstances, the Court agreed to accept his appeal late, and has not yet returned an opinion.

In spite of the undecided status of Reséndiz’s appeal, an execution date has already been set for him and a death warrant has been signed.

In his appeal before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Reséndiz argued that he is insane and ineligible for execution. Whether or not the Court will agree has yet to be seen.

Still, it is in poor taste and approaching a violation of Reséndiz’s due process rights for the state to be so presumptuous as to prepare for Reséndiz’s execution while an important appeal remains pending.

Please write to Gov. Rick Perry on behalf of Angel Resendiz!

 
 

Son of Railroad Killer's victim will be at execution

By Barry Halvorson - The Victoria Advocate

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

When it comes time for the state of Texas to execute convicted "Railroad Killer" Angel Maturino Resendiz today, the son of one of his victims, Josephine Konvicka, plans to be there to watch and he hopes it will finally bring closure for his family. "I'm both relived and disappointed the day has finally come," Thomas Konvicka said Monday afternoon. "It has taken way too long for this day to arrive based on the considerable pain that he inflicted on the victims and their families. But I welcome seeing his death so that it can bring the family some closure."

Konvicka has been selected as the one member of his family who will be allowed to view the execution. His brother and one sister will be in a waiting area at the prison during the execution. The family also includes two sisters. "I don't know who else will be attending the execution," Konvicka said. "Other than the trial, we haven't stayed in touch with the families of the other victims."

Konvicka, who is a certified peace officer, works in the Houston Police Department's latent fingerprints lab. "As a peace officer, I fully know about all the different emotions that a person can go through viewing an execution," he said. "But being a realist, I don't think they will effect me personally because that's not my personality. I don't forgive him for what he did to my family and I want to see him dead."

Konvicka admitted to having already spent much of his emotions in the years since his mother's death. 'The murder was devastating to the family in a way that's hard to explain," he said. "Personally, I've been living in a suspended state. I told my wife that I've missed out on such things as our kids growing up for the past few years. Until I know justice is done, and there is some finality, things just aren't registering with me."

The Mexican government announced on Friday that it will be fighting the execution based on Resendiz, 46, being mentally unfit, according to an Associated Press report.

That announcement came following a decision by a Texas judge who ruled Resendiz mentally competent to be executed. "I'm trying to have faith in the justice system but do have a concern that international politics is going to enter into any decision," Konvicka said. "But last week he was judged competent. The courts had already ruled at the time of his trial that he was sane and knew what he was doing. If you follow the trail of his crimes, they were well planned out, he stole items from the homes, and he knew how to evade the police. It paints a clear picture of someone who was aware of what he was doing. He was very competent when he was committing the crimes.

Josephine Konvicka, 73, was killed in her home just outside Weimar on June 4, 1999, according to law enforcement records. Her death came just barely a month after the deaths of the Rev. Norman J. "Skip" Sirnic, 46, and his wife Karen, 47, in the parsonage of the United Church of Christ in Weimar on May 2, 1999.

According to an Associated Press story, Resendiz was connected to eight killings in Texas, two each in Illinois and Florida, and one each in Kentucky, California and Georgia between 1986 and 1999, when he turned himself in to authorities. He has claimed to have committed even more killings.

Resendiz is scheduled to be executed for the death of Houston-area physician Claudia Benton on Dec. 17, 1998. Resendiz was called the "Railroad Killer" because many of his attacks took place near railroad tracks and he was known to travel by hopping trains.

 
 

SURVIVOR OF KENTUCKY ATTACK: 'I GUESS IT WILL BE A RELIEF'

Woman tries 'to live past the trauma'

By Jessie Halladay - Louisville Courier Journal

June 28, 2006

The only surviving victim of "Railroad Killer" Angel Maturino Resendiz said his execution last night won't heal the trauma of her 1997 attack, but "I guess it will be a relief when he's not in the world anymore."

Holly Dunn Pendleton was a University of Kentucky student in August 1997 when Resendiz brutally attacked her and killed her boyfriend. She declined to be interviewed but issued a statement this week to The Courier-Journal. "I'll live with the emotional trauma whether he's in the world or not," she wrote, adding that she would continue to speak out against sexual assault and domestic violence. "The scars will never completely go away but I have learned to live past the trauma, and I have focused my energy toward helping others."

Resendiz was executed in Texas last night for the murder of Dr. Claudia Benton, 39, of Houston in 1998. That slaying was part of a cross-country murder spree between 1997 and 1999 that authorities say left at least 15 people dead. Many of the victims were stalked near railroad tracks, as Resendiz traveled from place to place in freight cars.

Dunn Pendleton, who now lives in Indiana, said she planned to spend yesterday surrounded by the friends and family who have supported her over the years, rather than travel to Texas for the execution. The 1997 assault on Dunn Pendleton and fellow UK student Chris Maier was Resendiz' first known attack.

He crushed Maier's skull with a 52-pound rock, then raped Dunn Pendleton and beat her head with a heavy cudgel. Dunn Pendleton was the prosecution's star witness in the sentencing phase of his trial in Texas in 2000.

Last week, she was honored in Washington with a Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Award for Outstanding Public Service because of her work as an advocate for victims of sexual assault and because she developed Holly's House, a center for victims of violent crimes in Evansville, Ind.

Getting the award, she wrote, has helped to temper the memories that have arisen over news of Resendiz' execution, and has helped her remain focused on the positive.

In Texas, Benton's husband, George, witnessed Resendiz's execution "to make the statement that people have to understand what evil really is." "What was executed today may have looked like a man, walked and talked like a man, but what was contained inside that skin was not a human being," he said. "This is not human behavior, but something I can only say is evil contained in human form, a creature without a soul, no conscience, no sense of remorse, no regard for the sanctity of human life."

His wife was stabbed with a kitchen knife, bludgeoned with a 2-foot bronze statue and raped in her home, just down the street from a railroad track. "It's beyond my comprehension. I can't really consider the depths of that human behavior," Benton had previously said.

 
 

Railroad Killer Still Pains Ill. Town

By Jim Suhr - Houston Chronicle

Associated Press - June 27, 2006

GORHAM, Ill. — Freight trains clack dozens of times a day through this sleepy southern Illinois village, bringing life to the century-old town. But locals still wince when they think of the day Angel Maturino Resendiz brought death.

Scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday, the drifter known as the "Railroad Killer" needed only a few hours in town to leave his bloody mark.

He blasted George Morber in the head with the retiree's shotgun before bashing Morber's daughter to death with the butt of the weapon when she came by to clean her father's home. Resendiz helped himself to Morber's food and pickup truck, which was later found 70 miles away.

The Mexican national preyed on those he happened upon while riding the rails. His surrender a month after the Gorham killings ended a spree that authorities say left at least 15 dead in Texas, Illinois, Florida, Kentucky, California and Georgia.

Resendiz has confessed in the Gorham slayings but never charged. He is scheduled for execution Tuesday in Texas for the 1998 rape and slaying of a doctor. Good riddance, many residents say. "He just bounced in and committed a wicked crime. Just kill him," says Sharon Sargent, 48. "This town has always been known for its frequent trains. But who knows what's going to come through now? It's happened once. Who's to say it's not going to happen again?"

Before Resendiz dropped in on this bucolic place tucked among rolling hills near the Mississippi River, locals say, killings were the stuff of big cities like St. Louis, about 90 miles to the northwest. George Morber enjoyed the good life as a retired prison worker and Army veteran.

The 80-year-old's trailer skirted a three-acre, fish-filled pond he enjoyed trolling for catfish and bluegill. His 51-year-old daughter, Carolyn Frederick, lived on the water's other side.

Although he lived fewer than 100 yards from the tracks, Morber didn't mind the incessant thunder of passing trains or the uninvited guests the rails brought his way _ hungry, train-hopping hobos who often traipsed across his land. Morber fed them and they moved on. Then came June 15, 1999.

Resendiz bedded down among trees behind Morber's home, watched Morber drive off, and climbed through a window, according to Frederick's widower, Don Frederick. But Morber surprised the intruder when he returned just moments later with the morning newspaper.

The drifter used telephone cord to bind Morber in a recliner, then blasted him once in the head with a shotgun. When Morber's daughter stopped by, Resendiz bludgeoned her so forcefully the shotgun broke in half.

Resendiz snacked on Morber's food, took down family photographs, perused the morning paper and lounged about, Don Frederick says. The drifter left his fingerprints everywhere before driving off in Morber's truck.

"He was in there four a half, five hours. He took his time," Frederick said. He discovered the carnage after one of his daughters said she couldn't reach Morber.

The death toll could have been greater _ Morber's wife wasn't around that day because she had been admitted to a hospital just a day earlier due to chronic heart trouble.

In the hospital, Frederick says, the television set in Morber's wife's room was removed to shield her from details about her husband's death.

Locals soon locked their doors and kept children within sight _ things they had never felt compelled to do before. Sargent says her aunt stopped walking the tracks for exercise "because nobody trusted anyone." Gorham residents turned less charitable to transients, resident Willa Homan says. "After this hobo turned out to be the Railroad Killer, that changed things," Homan said. "You've got people locking their doors more," says Bud Stone, a member of the village board who has served as mayor. "You don't want this happening again, I can tell you that."

Now occupying the trailer where Morber and his daughter met their demise, Charles Hester says he doesn't feel overly worried about living near the tracks. "It wasn't the train that did this; the train can't help it that people use it for a free ride," he says.

 
 

Angel Maturino Resendiz

The Crime Library

Terror Near the Tracks For nearly two years, a killer literally followed wheatfield America’s railroad tracks to slay unsuspecting victims before disappearing back into the pre-lit dawn.

His modus operandi was always the same – he struck near the rail lines he illegally rode, then stowed away on the next freight train to come his way. Always ahead of the law.

Angel Maturino Resendez, 39 years old, was apprehended early this month (July, 1999) after eluding state police for two years and slipping through a two-month FBI net until, after nine alleged murders, he was finally traced and captured by a determined Texas Ranger.

Known, for apparent reasons, as "The Railroad Killer," Angel Resendez (who was known throughout much of the manhunt by the alias Rafael Ramirez) has been called "a man with a grudge," "confused," hostile" and "angry" by the police, the news media and psychiatrists.

He is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who crossed the international border at will. Most of his crimes took place in central Texas, but he is suspected of having killed as far north as Kentucky and Illinois.

While he fits the mold of serial killers such as David Berkowitz and the Boston Strangler, Resendez killed more meditatively for something he needed: alcohol, drugs, a place to hide out, though usually money. He raped, but "sex seemed almost secondary," according to former FBI profiler John Douglas.

Douglas calls Resendez "just a bungling crook …very disorganized," but one whose own disorganization worked well for him. Because his trail was haphazard, because he himself didn’t know where he was heading next, this directionless, drifting form of operation kept Resendez inadvertently ever-the-more elusive.

FBI special agent Don K. Clark says that the manhunt was complicated by the fact that Resendez had "no permanent address" while continuing to travel unchecked "throughout the United States, Mexico and Canada."

While his travels might best be described as spontaneous, and his slayings as combustive, that is not to say that the Railroad Killer didn’t have his own particular signature. He pretty much followed a routine. For one, the murders all occurred "in close proximity to train track locations," to quote Clark.

Late last month, in the heat of the intensive manhunt for the murderer, John Douglas described what appeared to be the killer’s simple but deadly agenda:

"When he hitches a ride on the freight train, he doesn’t necessarily know where the train is going. But when he gets off, having background as a burglar, he’s able to scope out the area, do a little surveillance, make sure he breaks into the right house where there won’t be anyone to give him a run for his money. He can enter a home complete with cutting glass and reaching in and undoing the locks.

"He’ll look through the windows and see who’s occupying it. The guy’s only 5 foot-7, very small. In fact…the early weapons were primarily blunt-force trauma weapons, weapons of opportunity found at the scenes. He has to case them out, make sure he can put himself in a win-win situation."

Where he came from, what spurred his crime spree, what kind of man was Resendez –these will be examined in the succeeding chapters. For now, let’s pause to examine his list of victims.

The Killings

Following is a list of the nine serial murders attributed to Resendez:

VICTIM 1: August 29, 1997/Lexington. KY: Christopher Maier, 21, a University of Kentucky student, and his girlfriend are attacked while walking along the tracks near the college. Maier is bludgeoned to death and she is raped and beaten, almost to the point of death. She miraculously survives.

VICTIM 2: October 4, 1998/Hughes Spring, TX: On this cool Fall evening, 87-year-old Leafie Mason is hammered to death by a tire iron by someone who enters her home through a window. Her front door faces the Kansas City-Southern Rail Line tracks only 50 yards away.

VICTIM3: December 17, 1998/Houston, TX: An invader breaks into the home of Dr. Claudia Benton, 39, of the Baylor College of Medicine, when she arrives home, the intruder rapes, stabs and bludgeons her repeatedly with a blunt instrument. Her home is near the rail lines that run through suburban West University Place. When the police recover her stolen Jeep Cherokee in San Antonio. TX, they find fingerprints on the steering column that match those of drifter Resendez, a known illegal alien. Three weeks later, a county judge signs a warrant for Resendez’ arrest for burglary – but, strangely enough, not for murder. There is not enough evidence, says he!

VICTIMS 4 & 5: May 2, 1999 Weimar, TX: Late at night, the Reverend Norman J. "Skip" Sirnic, 46, and wife Karen, 47, are struck to death by a sledgehammer in the parsonage of the United Church of Christ -- located adjacent to the town’s railroad. The couple’s red Mazda is found in San Antonio three weeks later. Forensic evidence matches the killing of Dr. Benton in Houston

VICTIM 6: June 4, 1999: Houston, TX: Schoolteacher Noemi Dominguez, 26, is clubbed to death in her apartment, located near rail tracks. Seven days later, troopers find Dominguez’ 1993 white Honda Civic abandoned at the international bridge at Del Rio, Texas.

VICTIM 7: June 4, 1999/Fayette County, TX: Seventy-three-year-old Josephine Konvicka is killed in bed by a blow of a pointed garden tool to the head. She lived in a frame farmhouse not far from Weimar, where a month prior Rev. and Mrs. Simic were killed, and within shadows of a rail yard. Her car has been tampered with, but the killer is unable to find the keys.

VICTIMS 8 & 9: June 15, 1999/Gorham, IL: An intruder breaks into a mobile home to kill its two occupants, After shooting George Morber, Sr.,80, in the head with a shotgun, he then clubs to death Morber’s daughter, Carolyn Frederick, 52. Their house sits only 100 yards from the a railroad track. The next day, a passerby spots Fredericks’ red pickup truck in Cairo, IL, sixty miles south of Gorham, being driven by a man matching Resendez’ description.

Most of Resendez’ victims were found covered with a blanket; none were of a tall or burly stature, for the killer himself is of a diminutive size and stature. But, he might well have been a giant for the terror he struck in the hearts of otherwise-relaxed communities.

Citizens’ emotions ran high in the towns where he killed; in the smaller ones, especially, people who had never locked their doors and windows at night were now bolting them. Children were ushered off the dusky streets by nervous parents, shops closed early, and moonlit strolls ended.

Sentiments throughout pretty much echoed the words of Mayor Bernie Kosler of Weimar, the little Texas burgh where the Simics and Mrs. Konvicka were slain. "The stores around here," he said, "have sold out of pistols."

Manhunt

State and city law enforcement agencies did what little they could to find the will-o'-the-wisp maniac. Freight yard security was steeped up and hobos by the boxcar loads were hauled into local jails for positive identification and questioning. Sometimes freight trains were paused -- to hell with time schedules! -- and searched engine to caboose.

Hispanics, even those who worked in the yards, complained to their bosses about the dirty looks they got from townspeople and what they felt was harassment from the police.

Hangouts for transients became targets for raids; policemen marched through homeless shelters, blood centers and soup kitchens where men earning money as migrant workers were known to frequent.

Loiterers about town were hustled into police stations for questioning, but quickly released when it was proven they were not Angel Resendez.

In June of 1999, the Federal Bureau of Investigation placed the Railroad Killer on its Top Ten Most Wanted list. The Bureau’s Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP) compared the elements of the alleged Resendez killings to come up with matches linking the same man to all of them.

The FBI’s initial reward of $50,000 for information leading to Resendez’ capture escalated within days to $125,000 as affected municipalities anted up.

Wanted posters described Resendez as 5’7" tall, weighing 140-150 pounds; black hair, brown eyes and dark complexion; scars on right ring finger, left arm and forehead; a snake tattoo on his left forearm and a flower tattoo on his left wrist; has been known to employ any one of dozens of aliases, social security numbers and birth dates (although the certified date seemed to be August 1, 1960); has worked as a day laborer, migrant worker or auto mechanic.

In the meantime, Jackson County, IL officially charged Resendez with the murder of the Gorham killings after his fingerprints are documented. Officials in Louisville, KY did likewise.

Angry authorities in the latter city, where Christopher Maier became the first of the Railroad Killer’s nine known victims, disseminated wallet-size photos of the murderer, urging citizens to notify the police immediately if they even think they have spotted him.

On July 1, authorities in Fayette County, TX, identified DNA from Noemi Dominguez in Josephine Konvicka’s home, indicating that after Resendez killed the younger woman, he drove her car to other woman’s home for more bloodletting.

Don K. Clark, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Houston office, coordinating the nationwide manhunt, called Resendez "a very dangerous and violent person," explaining why the Mexican national and border jumper was placed on the infamous Top Ten list. "He’s demonstrated he can use almost any kind of object to take a human life in a very violent manner and we’ve got to try to catch him."

Two hundred agents, he said, were assigned round-the-clock assignments in locations where Resendez was known to have struck and where he might strike next. Of course, areas of concentration included freight yards and rail depots. "We have the train tracks," Clark summarized.

Agents soon received more than 1,000 phone tips from people who claimed they had either seen the fugitive, who knew the victims, or thought they might have something new or novel to add to the strategy of the manhunt or psychology of the fugitive.

Most of the leads were blind, but some of them proved solid, as was the call that came in from vacationing acquaintances of Resendez who spotted him in Louisville.

This occurred about the same time that John Matilda, director of the Wayside Christian Mission in that city, advised the police that he, too, had seen the runaway.

On July 7, the FBI felt they had made a good move in recruiting the help of Resendez’ common-law wife, Julietta Reyes, whom they brought into Houston from her hometown of Rodeo, Mexico, 250 miles below the border. "She would like to do everything she can to get (her husband) to turn himself in to the appropriate authorities," reported Clark. Surprisingly, Julietta turned over to the FBI 93 pieces of jewelry that she had been mailed to her from her husband abroad.

She was sure they belonged to his victims. And she was on target. Relatives of Noemi Dominguez quickly identified thirteen of the pieces.

As well, George Benton, husband of the murdered Claudia Benton, claimed several other pieces as her property.

A Fatal Slip-Up For all the spent efficiency, Angel Resendez continued to elude the law at every turn. John Douglas, who had been with the FBI for 25 years, rued the fact that, "the manhunt for the accused killer (had) been hampered by the lack of a coordinated computer system that would allow law enforcement officials to compare notes instantly and determine patterns."

The lack of such a system proved to be more injurious to the manhunt than Douglas could have predicted at the time.

On June 2, the Border Patrol apprehended Angel Resendez near El Paso as he was attempting to cross the border illegally.

While he was in its custody, the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) performed a computer search on him, checking his fingerprints and photo against a possible fugitives list.

Because the system failed to identify him as a wanted man, the INS deported him to Mexico. The slip-up proved to be much more than an embarrassment – it wound up to be a crucial blunder.

After his release, Resendez immediately found his way back into the States where, within 48 hours, he killed both Dominguez and Konvicka near Houston, then Morber and his daughter in Illinois.

Four innocent people murdered over a computer glitch. "Our computers told us that he was nothing of lookout material," explained C.G. Almengor, a supervisor at the border. His words were too anti-climactic. "We really wish he had been in the system so we could have caught him." But, the error could not be totally blamed on modern technology.

On July 1, a month after the mistake, a Justice Department representative admitted that the West University Place Police Department had notified the INS about Resendez back in December right after the death of Dr. Benton, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner announced an internal investigation into the matter.

Suspicious Angel The manhunt for Resendez involved more than the physical knocking on locked doors and pacing through dusty freight yards. As with any manhunt the FBI conducts, a lot of time is spent getting to know the type of man or woman for whom it is searching.

This includes studying the culprit’s criminal background, social history and psychoses. Resendez had a long record of criminal enterprises before the series of known murders began in 1997 "He probably started killing somewhere in his late 20s," remarks John Douglas, who as a former FBI agent, spent many hours pursuing other Resendezes. "He may have killed people like himself initially – males, transients."

Continuously being sent back to Mexico by U.S. deportation officers who found him in this country illegally, he "became angry at the population at large. What America represents here is this wealthy country where he keeps getting kicked out…(he) just can’t make ends meet.

Coupled with these feelings, these inadequacies, fueled by the fact that he’s known to take alcohol, take drugs, lowers his inhibitions now to go out and kill."

In the FBI’s possession is a birth certificate listing Resendez as having been born on August 1, 1960 in Izucar de Matomoros in the state of Puebla, Mexico.

His mother, Virginia de Maturino, claims the real spelling of his surname is Recendis, not Resendez, which he uses. She admits that her son spent his formative years not with her, but with another family that seemed to lack proper guidance. And homosexuals in Puebla may have sexually abused him, she says.

Virtually an orphan, Resendez roamed the streets as a child, without a real family role model. The FBI has identified a sister in Albuquerque, New Mexico and other relatives both south and north of the border. Relatives in the U.S. have migrated as far north as the Great Lakes and as far east as Vermont.

Angel Resendez first came to the attention of the U.S. Justice Department at age 16 when he was caught in Brownsville, TX, trying to cross the border from Mexico in 1976. "He was deported two months later," says the Dallas/Forth Worth Internet Service, "the first of…numerous run-ins with U.S. authorities."

In 1988, he briefly lived in St. Louis where "he registered with a temporary agency and worked a half-day at a manufacturing company (and) voted in two elections under an assumed name".

Resendez’ criminal life in the United States, as well as his ability to escape long-term punishment here, reads like a bad novel.

After his first deportation in August 1976, he returned to the U.S. a month later where INS agents located him in Sterling Heights, MI., and yet again in October, this time in McAllen, Texas. Then he quieted for a spell.

No one knows when he slipped back into this country, but in September of 1979, he was sentenced to a 20-year prison term for auto theft and assault in Miami, Florida. Luck on his side, he was paroled within six years and released onto Mexican soil.

But, the drifter drifted quite actively. Over the next decade, Resendez was apprehended and tried in Texas for falsely claiming citizenship, for which he did an 18-month prison stint (1986);

was arrested for possessing a concealed weapon in New Orleans, receiving an 18-month sentence, but paroled after a year (1988); earned a 30-month sentence for attempting to defraud Social Security in St. Louis (1988);

pleaded guilty to burglary charges in New Mexico, a crime that gained him an 18-month prison term, though again he was paroled after a year (1992); and was apprehended in a Santa Fe rail yard for trespassing and carrying a firearm (1995).

For the last infraction he was again deported. In fact, after every incarceration -- and in between them -- he was dumped across the border so many times that he resembled a boomerang.

Two years after the last recorded deportation, he materialized in Kentucky to kill Christopher Maier.

Surrender

Sometime in early June, a young Texas Ranger by the name of Drew Carter conceived the notion that perhaps Resendez’ sister, Manuela, whom Resendez is said to idolize, might be instrumental in affecting her brother’s surrender.

He contacted Manuela, who lived in Albuquerque, to assess the practicality of his plan. The woman, who feared that her brother might eventually be killed by the FBI, or might kill again in the meantime, promised Carter that she would do everything humanly possible to help.

The FBI had traced Resendez’ whereabouts to Mexico where he had absconded not long after the double murder in Illinois. He was believed to be, at that point, hiding near the town of Ciudad Juarez.

In his easy-going, unforced rapport with Manuela, Sgt. Carter explained that he was working with the FBI and legal prosecutors in Harris County (TX) to offer the fairest deal he could to her brother, the Railroad Killer, under the circumstances.

If he surrendered himself, Carter told her, Resendez would be assured of three things: 1) his personal safety while in jail; 2) regular visiting rights so that his wife, sister and others could visit him; and 3) a psychological evaluation. In effect, Carter’s weeks-long relationship-building effort created solid steps toward working a miracle -- that is, getting a serial killer to turn himself in."

Carter, who had been a Texas Ranger less than a year, believed in being straightforward. Says he, "Honesty’s never hard. Sincerity is something people sense. That’s what I did. I was honest with the family."

On Monday, July12, Manuela received a fax from the district attorney’s office in Harris County, putting into writing the agreement that Carter had stated. The offer was then passed on to another relative who acted as emissary between his sister in Albuquerque and brother Angel in Mexico.

That evening, word came from Ciudad Juarez that the Railroad Killer would, based on the Carter’s word, surrender. The long-awaited moment was scheduled for 9 A.M. the following morning.

Tuesday, July 13. Carter was there ahead of time, accompanied by Manuela and her pastor to act as spiritual guide. They met on a bridge connecting Zaragosa, Mexico, with El Paso.

"When I saw that face there was a little bit of excitement there because I finally said, ‘This is going to happen,’" Carter recalls. He watched Resendez alight from the truck in dirty jeans and muddy boots. As he neared him, "He stuck out his hand, I stuck out my hand, and we shook hands."

With the timidity of a true hero, Carter, who pulled off one of the greatest arrests in Texas Ranger history, refuses to take full credit for his coup; he cited the support of the FBI and other law enforcement and county representatives who helped establish the terms of agreement that convinced the dreaded Railroad Killer to cross that bridge.

Whoever gets the credit, the event pleased many and brought relief, especially to the victims’ families and friends. The Dallas/Fort Worth Internet Service reports, "Several hundred people in Weimar attended a ceremony to pray and give thanks for the suspect’s capture. As the sun set and a train whistle blew in the background, residents of the South Texas town hugged and cried."

But, sometimes anger dies hard. "I wish (Resendez) the worst," says murder victim Josephine Konvicka’s daughter. "He’s destroyed so much of our lives."

Incarceration

Law enforcement officials remain perplexed as to why the Railroad Killer surrendered so freely to a state that has executed more people than any other. Surely, Resendez must know that, if convicted of any of the murders in Texas, which seems very likely, he will face the death penalty.

More so, prosecutors in Harris County -- where on Thursday, July 22, he was indicted for the murder of Dr. Benton – hold the national record for sending murderers to the electric chair.

Texas Ranger Carter’s surrender agreement was very concise in detail. In no way was the verbiage misleading as to confuse Resendez into believing he would be spared due punishment.

One possible speculation for Resendez’ easy surrender was that he feared bounty hunters who, it was known, had gathered in Mexico to collect the reward.

An editorial in The Dallas Morning News reads thus: "Mr. Resendez faces a long legal process. Some questions surrounding the surrender itself need to be answered – why did he not merely ‘lose himself’ in Mexico? Or, given Mexico’s policy against extraditing alleged murderers to the United States because of the death penalty here, why did he not simply surrender to Mexican authorities? Once those questions are answered, (his) surrender may turn out to be as interesting as the manhunt itself."

In the meantime, his world of endless railroad tracks has constricted to a 60-square-foot cell at the maximum-security Harris County Jail.

A cot, a toilet and a wash basin are his life’s accessories. "Because of the high profile of the case, he’s under administrative segregation…A deputy has constant visual observation of him," explains facility spokesperson Celeste Spaugh.

Four murder charges are filed against him and he faces other possible charges in Kentucky and Illinois. Maybe, Florida, too. That state is in the process of comparing blood samplesfound in a 1997 Marion County murder – a body found beside rail tracks.

Mexico Has Questions

There may be a good reason why Angel Resendez chose not to surrender to Mexican authorities. Perhaps, our neighbors south of the border want to talk to him, also, about some killings in Ciudad Juarez.

"We are looking at the homicides we haven’t cleared that appear to fit his method," states Steve Slater, an advisor to the Chihuahua State Public Safety Department...He has family in Juarez, including his mother. He’s been through here a lot. We certainly have railroad tracks and bodies found by railroad tracks, and most are women."

Before this case rounds out, Angel Maturino Resendez may be shown to have taken part in any one of another 200 cases the FBI says fit his modus operandi. He may turn out to be one of the greatest – or perhaps a better word is infamous – serial killers of all time.

In any event, the Railroad Killer will no longer be riding any box cars, so Arlo Guthrie may return to glorifying the wheat fields of America and the clack-clack-clack of the train riding mighty iron rails of folklore.

Sentenced to Death

Angel Maturino Resendez has been found guilty of capital murder and today sits on death row in Livingston, Texas. All he has to look forward to is a lethal injection that will send him to God’s judgment.

Jury selection for what would eventually lead to the eight-day trial of the Railroad Killer began late March 1999, in Houston, Harris County. The latest chapter of the Resendez drama began tumultuously with his refusal to play ball even with his own lawyers.

First, he refused to be tested by a court-appointed psychiatrist (although he eventually conceded), and then he chose not to accept a change of venue despite his attorneys’ claims that he might not get a fair trial in Houston.

Even though Resendez has been formally charged with the murders of seven people in total, he has only been tried and convicted of one of those killings, that of Dr. Claudia Benton, whom he slew in her home in 1988.

Her body had been found a couple of weeks before Christmas, battered and broken. Several items stolen from Benton’s home – including fragments of a steering column from Benton’s Jeep -- were later recovered by police in the house of Resendez’s girlfriend. As well, Resendez’s fingerprints were found in that same automobile

Presiding over the trial was District Judge William Harmon; chief prosecutor for the state was County District Attorney John Holmes, Jr., assisted by Devon Anderson. Court-appointed defense lawyers Allen Tanner and Rudy Duarte, aware that the state’s case against their client was air tight, fought to have Resendez committed on insanity.

The trial faced several postponements. One was caused by a delay in procuring the findings of several psychiatrists, to whose examinations Resendez at first would not submit.

Another was generated by the defense council’s action to move the trial from Harris County to a place where, they felt, sentiment was less harsh against the headline-making serial killer.

A segment of the motion read, “Publicity (here) has been inflammatory and unfair and has created such hostility towards the defendant, and prejudiced the opinions of members of the community to such a degree, that it is unlikely that a verdict can be solely reached on the evidence presented at the trial.”

That the court might have decided in favor of the motion was thwarted when the defendant himself refused to abide with the request.

Opposed to a local trial in the outset, he changed his mind afterwards stating that he believed that no matter where he went the public mindset was already poisoned against him. Despite his attorneys’ pleas, Resendez would not consent.

After the pre-trial upsets were finally settled, the session commenced to a packed courtroom on May 8, 1999. Judge Harmon issued a gag order that muzzled lawyers from talking freely to the press, but the explosion of emotions behind the courtroom doors was pyrotechnical. Over the next week, a jury equally divided by male and female members heard a series of witnesses from both sides.

The thrust of the trial seemed to center on whether or not Resendez was sane or insane when he committed his crimes, particularly the murder of Dr. Benton.

The defense brought forth forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bruce Cohen who diagnosed the defendant as schizophrenic. Cohen claimed that “(Resendez) did not know his conduct was wrong.”

Because of a mental delusion that had him believing his victims were evil, said Cohen, “(the defendant) thought he was justified in his behaviors.”

However, a psychiatrist testifying in behalf of the prosecution presented an altogether different summary. Dr. Ramon Laval, while agreeing that Resendez did have unhealthy views of women and of mankind in general, and suffered from misguided fixations, attested that Resendez “knew what he was doing” when he murdered Dr. Benton and the others.

With that, Prosecutor Holmes again reminded the jurors of the Railroad Killer’s savagery unleashed upon his victims – and, before detailing Dr. Benton’s murder, warned the court that it is “one of the most horrible that you will ever have the misfortune to hear.”

Of the twenty-plus witnesses for the prosecution, the last and most impacting was the 23-year-old girlfriend of victim Christopher Maier. Maier and she were attacked while strolling home from a function at the University of Kentucky in Lexington.

Raped, bludgeoned and left for dead, she recovered to identify Resendez as the Railroad Killer. In court, she detailed the bloody assault, which took place on August 27, 1997, near local railway tracks.

According to the witness, after Resendez killed Maier and before he pummeled her, he sardonically told her, “You don’t have to worry about him anymore.”

In closing arguments, the prosecution pointed to the heinous nature of Resendez’s crimes, the premeditative nature of each, the heartlessness displayed and, especially, to the inescapable evidence of his guilt: fingerprints, palm prints and, most damaging, DNA evidence collected from the scenes of the crime.

With little weight in their favor, the defense team merely begged for the mercy of the jurors to spare the life of the murderer. Meekly, almost pathetically, attorney Rudy Duarte recalled to the jury, “(Our client) recognized he had a problem, and he turned himself in. That is something.”

The jurors felt no sympathy. On May17, 1999, after 10 hours of deliberation, the panel pronounced Angel Maturino Resendez guilty of first-degree, premeditated murder. Despite his lawyers’ pleas, the Railroad Killer was sentenced to death.

A half-hearted appeals process awash, Resendez now awaits his fate in silence.George Benton cannot easily forgive his wife Claudia’s murderer. “It’s been hard,” he confesses, and remembers the day he had to tell his daughters that their mother was killed in fury.

One victim’s mother summed up her life since the murder of her kin, including the terrible memories disinterred at the trial: “It was like watching a horror movie.”

 
 

Ángel Maturino Reséndiz, aka The Railway Killer, (August 1, 1959 – June 27, 2006) was a convicted serial killer, executed in the U.S. state of Texas. He was a legal immigrant from Mexico, doctor in sciences[citation needed], he wandered the United States on trains to commit his crimes.

For the serial murders, on June 21, 1999 he briefly became the 457th fugitive listed by the FBI on the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

He was 39 years old when he was arrested in July 1999. He had been chiefly known, and sought, under the alias Rafael Resendez-Ramirez up until that date but he had about thirty other aliases that he used. One of these, Ángel Reyes Reséndiz was very close to the name given on his birth certificate from Izúcar de Matamoros, Puebla: Ángel Leoncio Reyes Recendis [1].

Murders and methodology

He evaded authorities for a considerable time, having no fixed addresses, and making undocumented international transit between Mexico, the United States, and Canada until he was captured.

Local residents in the area of the Benton and the Sirnics' murders were terrified that he might reappear, especially those living near train tracks. He was also known as a "Railroad Killer" Reséndiz killed at least 15 people [2] with rocks and other objects, mainly in their homes, to steal money for alcohol and drugs.

He raped some of his female victims, though rape only served as a secondary intent. Most of his victims were found covered with a blanket, or otherwise obscured from immediate view.

Victims

The following deaths are attributed to Reséndiz:

1. August 29, 1997, Lexington, Kentucky, Christopher Maier, 21 years old. He was a University of Kentucky student walking along nearby railroad tracks with his girlfriend when the two were attacked by Reséndiz, who bludgeoned Maier to death. Reséndiz raped and severely beat Maier's girlfriend, who nearly died as a result.

2. October 4, 1998, Hughes Springs, Texas, Leafie Mason, 81 years old. She was hammered to death with a fire iron by Reséndiz, who entered through a window. Fifty yards outside her door was the Kansas City-Southern Rail line.

3. December 17, 1998, West University Place, Texas, Claudia Benton, 39. Benton, who studied at the Baylor College of Medicine and worked with children, was raped, stabbed, and bludgeoned repeatedly after she entered her home, which is near the West University train tracks. Police found her Jeep Cherokee in San Antonio and found Reséndiz's fingerprints on the steering column. After the murder, Reséndiz had a warrant for his arrest for burglary, but not yet for murder.

4 and 5. May 2, 1999, Weimar, Texas, Norman J. Sirnic, 46 years old, and Karen Sirnic, 47 years old. The Sirnics were bludgeoned to death by a sledgehammer in a parsonage of the United Church of Christ, where Norman Sirnic was a pastor. The building was located adjacent to a railroad. The Sirnics' red Mazda was also found in San Antonio three weeks later, and fingerprints link their case with the Claudia Benton case.

6. June 4, 1999, Houston, Texas, Noemi Dominguez, 26 years old. Dominguez, a schoolteacher at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School, was bludgeoned to death in her apartment near the rail tracks. Seven days later, her white Honda Civic was discovered by state troopers on the International Bridge in Del Rio, Texas.

7. June 4, 1999, Fayette County, Texas, Josephine Konvicka, 73 years old. Konvicka was killed by the blow of a pointed garden tool on the head while she lay sleeping. Her farmhouse is not far from Weimar. Reséndiz attempted to steal the car but was unable to take it away since he could not find the car keys.

8. and 9. June 15, 1999, Gorham, Illinois, George Morber Senior, 80 years old, and Carolyn Frederick, 52 years old. Reséndiz shot George Morber in the head with a shotgun and then clubbed Carolyn Frederick to death. Their house was located only 100 yards (90 m) away from a railroad line. Later, an onlooker sees a man matching Reséndiz's description driving Carolyn Frederick's red pickup truck in Cairo, Illinois, which is located 60 miles south of Gorham.

In addition, Reséndiz admitted to three earlier killings:

1. March 23, 1997, Ocala, Florida, Jesse Howell, 19 years old. He was bludgeoned to death with an air hose coupling and left beside the tracks.

2. March 23, 1997, We Hope, Florida, Wendy VonHuben, 16 years old. She was raped, strangled, suffocated and buried in a shallow grave approximately 30 miles (48 km) away from her fiancé, Jesse Howell.

3. On Wednesday, April 12, 2006, the San Antonio Police Department announced it had cleared the unsolved murder of Michael White, who was found shot to death in July of 1991 in the front yard of a vacant house in downtown San Antonio.

According to San Antonio police, Angel Reséndiz gave them precise details about the murder, and has now been named the suspect.

Arrest and trial

The police tracked down Reséndiz's sister, Manuela. Manuela feared that her brother might kill someone else or be killed by the FBI, so she agreed to help the police.

A Texas Ranger, Drew Carter, accompanied by Manuela and a spiritual guide met up with Reséndiz on a bridge connecting El Paso, Texas, with Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. Reséndiz surrendered to him.

The state of Texas tried Reséndiz for the murder of Dr. Claudia Benton. He was found guilty and was sentenced to death by lethal injection.

In 1999, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox — wary of the controversy miring the many confessions and recantations by Henry Lee Lucas — remarked of Reséndiz that "I hope they don't start pinning on him every crime that happens near a railroad track." [3]

Mental Health

On June 21, 2006, a Houston judge ruled that Reséndiz was mentally competent to be executed. Upon hearing the judge's ruling, Reséndiz said, "I don't believe in death. I know the body is going to go to waste. But me, as a person, I'm eternal. I'm going to be alive forever."

He also described himself as half-man and half-angel and told psychiatrists he couldn't be executed because he didn't believe he could die. However, statements like the above have led specialists to conclude in the contrary — that Reséndiz is not competent to be executed.

In the words of a bilingual psychiatrist who evaluated Reséndiz on two occasions in 2006, “delusions had completely taken over [Reséndiz’s] thought processes.” [4]

Death

Ángel Maturino Reséndiz received an execution date set for June 27, 2006, by lethal injection. Although he did have an appeal pending with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he had the death warrant signed for the murder of Dr. Claudia Benton, a Houston-area physician killed in her home a week before Christmas 1998.

Ángel Reséndiz was executed in Huntsville, Texas, on June 27, 2006, by lethal injection. In his final statement, Reséndiz asked for forgiveness.

Reséndiz was pronounced dead at 8:05 p.m. central time (9:05 ET).[5] The execution was the 13th of the year in the nation's most active death penalty state.

Wikipedia.org

 
 

Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (Direct Appeal)

Defendant was convicted in the 178th District Court, Harris County, W.T. Harmon, J., of capital murder, and sentenced to death. On automatic direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Meyers, J., held that: (1) sufficient evidence supported jury's finding that defendant would be a continuing threat to society; (2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in capital murder prosecution in excluding crime scene photographs relating to extraneous offenses committed by defendant; and (3) expert's testimony, that as a geographically mobile organized sexual serial killer, defendant displayed criminal sophistication rather than psychotic behavior, was relevant. Affirmed. Keller, P.J., concurred in part. Womack, J., filed dissenting opinion in which Johnson, J., joined.

MEYERS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which PRICE, KEASLER, HERVEY, HOLCOMB, and COCHRAN, J.J., joined.

On May 18, 2000, appellant was convicted of capital murder. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a). Pursuant to the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. Art. 37.071 § 2(g).FN1 Direct appeal to this Court is automatic. Art. 37.071 § 2(h). Appellant raises sixteen points of error. We affirm. FN1. Unless otherwise indicated all future references to articles refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

In his third point of error, appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding that he would be a continuing threat to society.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at punishment, this Court looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant would probably commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d 471, 487 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied,510 U.S. 831, 114 S.Ct. 101, 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993).

Appellant was convicted of the capital murder of Dr. Claudia Benton. The State presented evidence that in December of 1998, appellant unlawfully entered Benton's home and brutally stabbed her to death. Additional evidence showed that appellant attempted to sexually assault Benton.

At punishment, the jury heard evidence of numerous other murders committed by appellant. Holly Dunn testified that in August of 1997, appellant approached her and Christopher Maier near some railroad tracks in Lexington, Kentucky. Appellant robbed Dunn and Maier.

He then bound Maier's hands and feet and gagged him. Appellant picked up a large object and beat Maier in the head with it, crushing his skull. After murdering Maier, appellant sexually assaulted Dunn.

He then hit her in the head with a large object and left the scene. Dunn survived, but suffered multiple*544 facial fractures and the trauma of the sexual assault.

In October of 1998, appellant unlawfully entered the home of 87-year-old Leafie Mason in Hughes Springs, Texas. Appellant killed Mason by hitting her in the head with an iron.

In May of 1999, appellant traveled to Weimar, Texas, and beat Skip and Karen Sirnic to death with a sledge hammer while they slept in their home. He also sexually assaulted Karen Sirnic.

In June of 1999, appellant unlawfully entered Noemi Dominguez's home, sexually assaulted her, and killed her with a pickax.

Appellant stole Dominguez's car and traveled to Schulenberg, Texas, where he killed 73-year-old Josephine Konvicka with the same pickax used on Dominguez.

Appellant left the pickax embedded in Konvicka's head. Also in June of 1999, appellant unlawfully entered 80-year-old George Morber's home in Gorham, Illinois. Morber's daughter, Carolyn Frederick, was with Morber when appellant broke in. Appellant tied Morber to a chair and shot him in the back of the head with a shotgun.

Appellant then sexually assaulted Frederick and struck her in the head with the shotgun with such force that the shotgun broke into two pieces. Neither Morber nor Frederick survived.

The facts of the instant case and appellant's history permit a rational juror to conclude that appellant would continue to be a threat to society.

Accordingly, we hold the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's affirmative answer to the future dangerousness issue. Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Allridge, 850 S.W.2d at 487. Appellant's third point of error is overruled.

In his first point of error, appellant claims he was denied a fair trial when the trial court refused to admit crime scene photographs relating to extraneous offenses committed by appellant.

In his second point of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the photographs because the probative value of the photographs was not outweighed by “any valid justification.”

At the guilt phase of trial, Dr. Bruce Cohen testified for the defense that he believed appellant was insane at the time he committed the capital murder in this case.

He testified that he relied on various interviews, letters, records, and reports, as well as crime scene photographs of six other murders committed by appellant in forming his opinion.

On direct examination, Cohen was shown the crime scene photographs and was asked to describe to the jury what the photographs depicted. The defense then offered the photographs into evidence.

The State objected pursuant to Rule of Evidence 705(d) that the photographs were not relevant simply because Cohen relied upon them to form his opinion.

Specifically, the State argued that the photographs were not relevant because the question in this case was whether appellant was insane at the time he committed Benton's murder, not the murders depicted in the photographs. The trial court sustained the State's objection. [5]

This Court reviews the trial court's ruling under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse the trial court's ruling unless it falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 151 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied,534 U.S. 855, 122 S.Ct. 127, 151 L.Ed.2d 82 (2001); Moreno v. State, 22 S.W.3d 482, 487 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

Rule 705(d) instructs that when the underlying facts or data used by an expert to form his opinion are inadmissible, the court shall exclude the underlying facts or data if the danger that they will be used “for a purpose other than as explanation or support for the expert's opinion outweighs their value as explanation or support or are unfairly prejudicial.” Tex.R. Evid. 705(d).

When the trial judge ruled the photographs inadmissible, he stated, “To see the photographs will not be any assistance to the jury, so I'm going to sustain the objection.” Later in the guilt phase of trial, the defense attempted to admit the photographs again.

The trial court sustained the State's objection and related that, “the only purpose for which they [the jurors] could consider the photographs was for the purpose of assessing the validity of the doctor's opinions and, quite frankly, they might consider it for, uhm, other purposes.”

The trial court ruled that the crime scene photos were not relevant because they did not depict the crime scene where Benton was killed, thus they were inadmissible. Tex.R. Evid. 402.

The court then conducted the balancing test for inadmissible evidence under Rule 705(d) and determined that the photographs could have been used for improper purposes.

The court also gave an alternative theory for excluding the photographs, even if they were relevant, stating: “But relevant evidence may still be excluded by the court under Rule 403. If, uhm, it's, you know, cumulative, you know, needless delay, confusion of the issues, and basically it's under that rule as well.”

Under Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it has the tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The photographs in this case were relevant because they go to the issue of appellant's sanity.

Viewing multiple photographs of various crime scenes may make the jury more likely to find that no “normal” person could commit such gruesome acts, and thus find that appellant is mentally ill or “crazy.”

However, as stated by the trial court, under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Evidence may confuse or mislead the jury if it distracts the jury from the main issues in the case or tends to focus the jury's attention on facts tangential to the case before them.

The photographs in question were likely to distract the jury from the facts of the crime charged and focus their attention on other crime scenes. While the photographs were relevant to the issue of appellant's sanity, merely viewing the photographs would not necessarily prove that appellant was legally insane, therefore their probative value was limited.

Additionally, viewing the other crime scenes may have led to confusion regarding the difference between appellant being “crazy” and the issue of legal insanity as defined in Texas Penal Code Section 8.01.FN2

While gruesome and shocking photographs depicting other crime scenes may convince the jury that appellant has committed acts unthinkable to most “normal” people, this does not mean that, at the time of the Benton offense, appellant did not know that his conduct was wrong as *546 required under Section 8.01(a).

Additionally, Section 8.01(b) specifically states that abnormality manifested by repeated criminal conduct, such as the multiple murders depicted in the photographs, is not to be considered a mental disease or defect that negates the responsibility of appellant for the charged offense.

FN2. Section 8.01 of the Texas Penal Code states that: (a)It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong. he danger that the photographs would confuse or mislead the jury outweighs their probative value, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding these particular photographs.

The trial court's alternative theory for the exclusion of the photographs under Rule 403 was correct. Appellant's first and second points of error are overruled.

In his fourth point of error, appellant contends the future dangerousness special issue was unconstitutional because that issue was not susceptible to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, appellant argues that in the capital punishment context, jurors apply a higher standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt because they will tolerate virtually no risk in assessing future danger.

The jury was properly instructed on the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume the jury follows the trial court's instructions. Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511, 520 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). Appellant presents no evidence to rebut this presumption.

Appellant's fourth point of error is overruled. In his fifth point of error, appellant argues that the trial court's failure to provide a definition of ‘society’ in the special issue on future dangerousness resulted in appellant's death sentence in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

We have previously rejected this argument. McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 620 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied,522 U.S. 844, 118 S.Ct. 125, 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997). Appellant's fifth point of error is overruled.

In his sixth point of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting the expert testimony of FBI Special Agent Alan Brantley because his testimony was not shown to be reliable.

Appellant did not object to the reliability of Brantley's testimony at trial. Therefore, he has not preserved error for our review. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1.

Appellant also contends that Brantley's testimony should not have been admitted because it was not relevant. Appellant made a relevancy objection at trial.

Evidence is “relevant” if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Tex.R. Evid. 401.

We review the trial court's decision to admit evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Salazar, 38 S.W.3d at 151; Moreno, 22 S.W.3d at 487. We will reverse the trial judge's decision only if it is outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id.

The State called Brantley to rebut appellant's insanity defense. Brantley testified that in June of 1999, he was contacted by the Houston Division of the FBI to consult with FBI agents, local police officers, and state law enforcement officials regarding this case.

He visited several crime scenes in Texas which were later connected to appellant. He also reviewed appellant's medical records, witness statements, letters written by appellant, and interviews with law enforcement.

Based on these documents, his tour of the crime scenes, his education as a clinical psychologist, and his many years of experience, Brantley formed the opinion that appellant is an “organized sexual serial killer” who is “geographically mobile.”

Brantley described an organized sexual serial killer as *547 an offender who committed “well-planned, well-orchestrated” multiple murders with a sexual element.

In this case, appellant displayed the characteristics of an organized sexual serial killer by committing murders at night, using rear locations to enter homes, committing murders near railroad tracks, and selecting random victims.

He displayed the characteristics of a geographically mobile offender by traveling nationally and internationally. Brantley testified that all of those characteristics demonstrated an effort to elude law enforcement.

Brantley related that as a geographically mobile organized sexual serial killer, appellant displayed criminal sophistication rather than psychotic behavior.

Brantley's testimony was relevant to rebut appellant's defensive theory of insanity. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.

Appellant argues further that even if Brantley's testimony was relevant, it should not have been admitted at trial because any probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 403. At trial, appellant made only one Rule 403 objection to Brantley's testimony:

[THE STATE]: Is there any-is the fact that the type of people that became victims of his crimes any indication about trying to avoid detection?
[BRANTLEY]: Well, that's another classic, uhm, example or element of the organized offender.

They select victims that are strangers, so this random victim selection is intent on eluding law enforcement authority better, because when you consider basic law enforcement homicide investigative techniques they generally start with the victim's inner circle of friends, family, and associates in an attempt to develop a suspect pool, if you will.
[THE DEFENSE]: Excuse me, sir. At this time, judge, we're going to object to this. It's speculative and irrelevant to this case at hand.
[THE COURT]: Overruled.
[THE DEFENSE]: And, for the record, judge, we object. If the court believes it relevant, that its prejudicial value outweighs any probative value, and that our further objection is that none of this is from this witness's personal knowledge.
[THE COURT]: Overruled.

Appellant objected only to Brantley's testimony regarding the random selection of victims. On appeal, however, appellant argues that Brantley's testimony was unfairly prejudicial because profile evidence is inherently unreliable and because Brantley did not interview appellant.FN3

Appellant's trial objection does not comport with the claim he now raises. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1; Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 828, 121 S.Ct. 79, 148 L.Ed.2d 41 (2000). Appellant's sixth point of error is overruled. FN3. The defense denied Brantley the opportunity to interview appellant.

In his seventh, eleventh, and twelfth points of error, appellant claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must satisfy the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Specifically, he must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance.

In order to demonstrate prejudice, appellant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the *548 proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct.2052.

There is “a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance [.]” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

In his seventh point of error, appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to effectively cross-examine Brantley. Specifically, he asserts that counsel should have questioned Brantley about the reliability of profile evidence.

The suggestion that cross-examination should have been conducted in another manner does not rebut the presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Ex parte Perkins, 706 S.W.2d 320, 323 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

Further, on cross-examination, counsel elicited testimony from Brantley that there were “disorganized” elements at the crime scenes which indicated that appellant was not consciously eluding detection, suggesting that appellant may have been acting in a psychotic manner.

Counsel also questioned Brantley about appellant's travels and Brantley admitted that appellant had been stopped at the United States/Mexico border on at least one occasion during his crime spree but was later released, suggesting that appellant was not as intent on evading capture as a sophisticated criminal would be.

The record reflects that counsel effectively cross-examined Brantley. As such, appellant fails to meet the requirements of the first prong of the Strickland test.

In his eleventh and twelfth points of error, appellant contends he is entitled to a new punishment hearing because his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the State's jury argument that the jury could not consider evidence of appellant's troubled background or the actions of law enforcement in securing appellant's arrest as mitigating evidence unless they first found that evidence somehow reduced appellant's moral blameworthiness.

The following is the relevant portion of the State's jury argument:

Special Issue No. 2 asked you to look at the charge. I'm sorry. Look at all the evidence again. Look at everything you've heard from the beginning. Looking at three things in particular; the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character, and background, and his personal moral culpability.

And it asked you to look at all of that stuff and see if you find anything, mitigating circumstances, and one thing we didn't talk about in voir dire that is in this charge is what a mitigating circumstance could be, which is evidence that one of you may find reducing the defendant's moral blameworthiness.

That's, that's what you are supposed to go through and look for. Anything in the record that reduces his moral blameworthiness.

And, once again, I want you to base this answer on the evidence, and I challenge you to find anything in the record over the last two weeks that reduces his moral blameworthiness.

The State did not instruct the jury that it could not consider evidence of appellant's background or his dealings with law enforcement as mitigating evidence without first finding that the evidence reduced appellant's moral blameworthiness.

Therefore, appellant has not met the requirements of either prong of the Strickland test. Appellant's seventh, eleventh, and twelfth points of error are overruled.

In his eighth point of error, appellant argues the 12-10 rule of Article 37.071 which requires ten votes for the jury to return a negative answer to the first or second special issue and at least ten votes for the jury to return an affirmative answer to the third special issue violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We have repeatedly rejected identical claims. Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 656 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 537 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied,531 U.S. 1128, 121 S.Ct. 885, 148 L.Ed.2d 793 (2001); Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 238 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied,528 U.S. 1082, 120 S.Ct. 805, 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000). Appellant's eighth point of error is overruled.

In his ninth point of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying his request to inform the jury that the failure to answer a special issue would result in a life sentence. He claims the trial court's denial violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We have repeatedly rejected identical claims. Chamberlain, 998 S.W.2d at 238; McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 519 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied,519 U.S. 1119, 117 S.Ct. 966, 136 L.Ed.2d 851 (1997). Appellant's ninth point of error is overruled.

In his tenth point of error, appellant claims that “the language in the jury charge informing jurors that in order for the court to assess the ‘proper punishment’ it was necessary for them to answer the special issues, in conjunction with the absence of an instruction informing them of the consequences of their inability to agree on an answer to a special issue, was so likely to mislead the jury that it would violate the Eighth Amendment.” Appellant cites no case law to support his argument. Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h).

Nonetheless, Article 37.071, section 2(a)(1) prohibits the trial court from instructing the jury on the effect of a failure to reach a unanimous decision regarding the special issues.

Further, the United States Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment does not require that juries be informed of the effect of any failure to reach a unanimous agreement regarding punishment. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). Appellant's tenth point of error is overruled.

In his thirteenth point of error, appellant claims that under Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (1998), cert. denied,526 U.S. 1070, 119 S.Ct. 1466, 143 L.Ed.2d 550 (1999), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the mitigation special issue is infirm under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it omits a burden of proof.

In point of error fourteen, he claims that after Mosley, the mitigation special issue is infirm under the Eighth Amendment because it makes impossible any meaningful appellate review of the jury's determination.

In point of error fifteen, appellant claims that Article 44.251, requiring appellate review of sufficiency of all capital punishment issues, when interpreted in conjunction with Article 37.071, section 2(e), placing no burden of proof in the mitigation special issue is infirm under the Eighth Amendment.

We have addressed and rejected the claim that the mitigation special issue is infirm as a matter of federal constitutional law because it omits a burden of proof. Jackson v. State, 33 S.W.3d 828, 840-841 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied,532 U.S. 1068, 121 S.Ct. 2221, 150 L.Ed.2d 213 (2001); McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 498-99.

We have also addressed and rejected the claim that the mitigation special issue violates the Eighth Amendment on the ground that meaningful appellate review of the jury's determination is impossible. Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 535-36 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

Appellant argues that the absence of a burden of proof is also a problem under the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Apprendi.

In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that sentence enhancements based on judicial fact findings violated due process.

The Court held, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348.

Appellant contends that Apprendi requires the State to bear the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigation issue should be answered in the negative. Appellant reads Apprendi too broadly.

Apprendi applies to facts that increase the penalty beyond the “prescribed statutory maximum.” Under Article 37.071, the statutory maximum is fixed at death. There are no statutory enhancements.

A positive jury finding on the mitigation issue does not have the potential of increasing the penalty; rather, it has the potential to reduce a defendant's sentence.

Further, with respect to appellant's claim the State should bear the burden of proof as to mitigation, Apprendi does not address this burden.

As to point of error fifteen, we have rejected identical claims and decline to revisit the issue. Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 715 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied,532 U.S. 1053, 121 S.Ct. 2196, 149 L.Ed.2d 1027 (2001). Appellant's thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth points of error are overruled.

In his sixteenth point of error, appellant contends that Texas Penal Code section 8.01 is unconstitutional because it does not define the words “know” and “wrong.” He claims that the result is the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty.

There is no error in omitting the definition of a word used in the statute when the word is used in its ordinary sense and is easily comprehended by everyone. Russell v. State, 665 S.W.2d 771, 780 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), citing Humphreys v. State, 34 Tex.Crim. 434, 30 S.W. 1066 (1895).

If there is no statutory definition of a term, the trial court is not obligated to define the term when it “has such a common and ordinary meaning that jurors can be fairly presumed to know and apply such meaning.” Phillips v. State, 597 S.W.2d 929, 937 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).

Likewise, when the terms used are simple in themselves and are used in their ordinary meaning, such as they are in this case, jurors are supposed to know their meaning, and therefore, a definition in the jury charge is not necessary. Hogan v. State, 496 S.W.2d 594, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied,414 U.S. 862, 94 S.Ct. 81, 38 L.Ed.2d 112 (1973), quoting Joubert v. State, 136 Tex.Crim. 219, 124 S.W.2d 368, 369 (1938). The terms “know” and “wrong,” though not defined in the statute, are common and easily comprehended. Appellant's sixteenth point of error is overruled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

KELLER, P.J., concurred in points of error one and two and otherwise joined the opinion of the Court.

WOMACK, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

This opinion should be substituted for the one that was filed on May 21, 2003. The appellant raised the defense that he was insane at the time he committed this homicide.

As bases for his opinion on the issue of sanity, the appellant's expert witness used the facts of this homicide and six other homicides that the appellant committed. These facts included photographs of the scenes of the other homicides, which the appellant offered in evidence.

Were the Photographs Irrelevant?

The State objected to the photographs of the six other scenes as not being relevant, and the trial court sustained the objection. It seems to be beyond serious question that the objection of irrelevance had no merit, since the Court treats the matter as one in which relevant evidence was excluded under Rule of Evidence 403.FN1 FN1. “The trial court's alternative theory for the exclusion of the photographs under Rule 403 was correct.” Ante, at 546.

Were the Photographs Inadmissible Evidence Underlying the Opinion of an Expert Witness?

The Court says the trial court also “conducted the balancing test for inadmissible evidence under Rule 705(d) and determined that the photographs could have been used for improper purposes.” FN2 The Court does not further discuss that rule. FN2. Ante, at 545. Our Rule of Evidence 703 states that an expert witness's opinion may be based on facts or data that are not admissible in evidence if they are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences on the subject. Further, “[t]he expert may in any event disclose on direct examination ··· the underlying facts or data.” FN3 FN3. Tex.R. Evid. 705(a).

These rules are a departure from the view of the majority of common law courts that forbade an expert witness's opinion to be based on hearsay or reports that were not in evidence.FN4

Although there was “a strong case law trend toward a contrary view,” FN5 it did not include the cases of the Texas courts. “Prior to the adoption of Rule 703, Texas courts refused to permit experts to state opinions based solely on hearsay outside the record, regardless of its admissibility or inadmissibility. As late as 1980, this rule was reaffirmed by the Texas Supreme Court ··· [and a] year later, the Court of Criminal Appeals.” FN6

FN4. “A question calling for a direct opinion based upon firsthand knowledge of an expert is so direct, simple, and thus effective that a party may for similar reasons desire to obtain an opinion based upon reports of others.

There formerly was a majority view, however, that a question is improper if it calls for the witness' opinion on the basis of reports that are not in evidence or are inadmissible in evidence under the hearsay rule (without reciting their contents as hypotheses, to be supported by other evidence as to their truth.)

The essential reason in support of this view is that seemed to be that the jury was asked to accept as evidence the witness' inference, based upon someone's hearsay or upon other inadmissible facts which were presumably not supported by any evidence at the trial and which therefore the jury had no basis for finding to be true ···· [A] broader view [was taken] in Federal Rule of Evidence 703, which has been adopted in various state jurisdictions.” Edward W. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 38-39 (3d ed.1984). FN5. Id., at 39. FN6. Steven Goode, Olin Guy Wellborn, III, and M. Michael Sharlot, 2 Texas Practice-Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidence: Civil and Criminal § 703.3 (2d ed.1993) (footnotes omitted).

Perhaps this is why Texas' Rule 705(d), unlike the federal rules, mandates a balancing test if the underlying facts or data are inadmissible in evidence. “When the underlying facts or data would be inadmissible in evidence, the court shall exclude the underlying facts or data if the danger that they will be used for a purpose other than an explanation or support for the expert's opinion outweighs their value as explanation or support, or are unfairly beneficial.” FN7 Exclusion is not always required. “Usually ··· a limiting instruction will suffice to negate the danger that the jury will improperly consider the inadmissible hearsay for its substantive purpose and ··· Rule 705(d) requires that one be given upon timely request.” FN8 FN7. Tex.R. Evid. 705(d). FN8. Goode et al., supra note 6, § 705.3. These photographs were not hearsay or extra-record evidence on which the expert relied. Rule 705(d) plays no part, in my view.

Was the Evidence Confusing or Misleading?

The trial court also ruled “under Rule 403” that the evidence was “cumulative,” would cause “needless delay,” and “confusion of the issues.” FN9 FN9. Ante, at 545.“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Tex.R. Evid. 403.

The Court says, “The photographs in question were likely to distract the jury from the facts of the crime charged and focus their attention on other crime scenes.” FN10 There was no dispute about the conduct and the result of the offense that was charged, and hence no danger of distraction from those facts. FN10. Ante, at 545.

The disputed fact of this homicide was the appellant's sanity at the time he committed it. The parties agreed that this homicide was one of a series of homicides that the appellant committed.

The opinion of the appellant's expert witness was that the facts of all the homicides were relevant to the appellant's sanity in this homicide.

Surely they were relevant. The trial court received in evidence the facts of the other offenses, and there seems to be no disagreement about their relevance. I believe the correct question is whether photographs of the scenes of those admittedly relevant homicides would be a distraction from the only contested issue, which was the appellant's sanity. If the Court would consider that question, perhaps it would hold, as I do, that the photographs would not have been a distraction from the contested issue.

Did the Evidence Lack Probative Value?

Although admitting that the photographs “were relevant to the issue of appellant's sanity,” the Court says that “merely viewing the photographs would not necessarily prove that appellant was legally insane, therefore their probative value was limited.” FN11 What does this mean? “Necessarily” means “inevitably” or “as a necessary result,” and “necessary,” in this usage, means “unavoidable.” FN12 FN11. Ante, at 545 (punctuation sic ). FN12. SeeOxford American Dictionary 444 (1980).

If this, or any, evidence necessarily proved an excuse like insanity, I suppose that a court would direct an acquittal. “Necessarily proving” a fact is not a requisite for evidence to admissibility. All that is required is that evidence be relevant.FN13

Relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact *553 that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” FN14 FN13. “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, by statute, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible.” Tex.R. Evid. 401. FN14. Tex.R. Evid. 403 (emphasis added).

The Court says that because these photographs would not necessarily prove that appellant was insane, “therefore their probative value was limited.” FN15 Now, all evidence has limited probative value; I have not heard of any evidence that had unlimited probative value. Is the limited value of this evidence different from the limited value of other evidence? Or is all evidence that has limited value also evidence does that does not necessarily prove a fact?

Is there any meaningful way to distinguish the limited probative value of these photographs from the probative value of any other item of evidence? Or does a trial court have discretion to exclude every item of evidence because every item has limited probative value? FN15. Ante, at 545.

Would the Evidence Confuse Abnormal with Insane?

The Court says, “While gruesome and shocking photographs depicting other crime scenes may convince the jury that appellant has committed acts unthinkable to most ‘normal’ people, this does not mean that, at the time of the Benton offense, appellant did not know that his conduct was wrong as required under Section 8.01(a).

Additionally, Section 8.01(b) specifically states that abnormality manifested by repeated criminal conduct, such as the multiple murders depicted in the photographs, is not to be considered a mental disease or defect.” FN16 FN16. Ante, at 545-46. The Court misstates the statute, which says that “ ‘mental disease or defect’ does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal … conduct.” FN17

Surely the Court cannot mean that a person who repeatedly commits crimes cannot be found to have a mental disease or defect that is also manifested in other ways. FN17. Tex. Penal Code § 8.01(b).

The more important aspect of the Court's statement is the previous sentence, in which it says that evidence of the appellant's conduct does not “mean” that he was insane-once again devaluing this evidence because it did not conclusively prove the issue of insanity, which no evidence has ever done or can ever do.

The sentence also says that photographs of the scenes of a person's six homicides might show that the person was unthinkably abnormal, but might confuse the issue of whether he was insane. How? Why?

Now, the trial court received oral evidence about the other homicides as relevant to the issue of insanity. Is the Court saying that that evidence also was relevant to abnormality, but not insanity? Can there be evidence of insanity that is not also evidence of abnormality?

If there can be, how does the Court know that these photographs are evidence of the latter and not the former? Or is it the photographic nature of the excluded evidence that makes it more relevant to abnormality than to insanity?

Is that true of all photographs, or only of homicide-scene photographs? Or is there something about these particular photographs that would turn a juror's mind away from the issue of insanity, and into the irrelevant area of abnormality?

They Should Have Been Admitted.

No one suggests that the photographs of the six other homicides that the appellant *554 committed were misleading or unreliable in any way.

There is no serious question of their relevance to the issue of insanity; the Court and I do not disagree on that point. Why would the State not want the jury to have this reliable, relevant evidence to decide the issue of the appellant's insanity? I fear that the Court's opinion hints at the answer: The State did not want the jury to see these photographs because they would have been powerful evidence that the appellant was abnormal.

Proof of abnormality was a necessary step in his effort to prove that he was insane and should be confined in a mental hospital rather than given the lethal injection that the State desired. I do not intimate any view as to his sanity, or suggest that the facts would require or even justify a finding of insanity.

I do think that his evidence was admissible, that he should have a trial in which the jury sees it, and that the law requires that he does.

I would sustain the appellant's first and second points and remand this case for a new trial.

 

 

 
 
 
 
home last updates contact