## Facts

- Robert Dean McClure was prosecuted for murdering his wife in Odessa, Texas.
- On June 10, 1974, McClure bought a .22 automatic pistol, went to the motel where his wife was staying, spoke with her briefly, and shot her eight times as she turned to leave; she died from the wounds.
- McClure’s first conviction was reversed on appeal due to improper jury argument by the prosecutor.
- At the retrial, McClure was again convicted of murder and sentenced to 99 years’ imprisonment.
- At the retrial, McClure contended he was guilty, if at all, of voluntary manslaughter because he acted under sudden passion arising from adequate cause tied to his wife’s repeated infidelity.
- To support that theory, McClure sought to present: (a) testimony from three men who claimed they had sexual relations with the deceased during the marriage, and (b) testimony from a court-appointed psychiatrist who examined McClure after the shooting regarding his mental and emotional condition at the time of the offense.
- The trial court excluded both categories of evidence from the jury at the guilt-innocence phase; the psychiatric testimony was also excluded at punishment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred during the guilt-innocence phase by excluding evidence of the deceased’s infidelity offered to show McClure’s state of mind and support a voluntary-manslaughter theory.
2. Whether the trial court erred by treating reports to McClure about the deceased’s infidelity as inadmissible hearsay when offered to show their effect on McClure.
3. Whether the trial court erred at the guilt-innocence and punishment phases by excluding the court-appointed psychiatrist’s testimony concerning McClure’s mental condition at the time of the offense.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the deceased’s infidelity because it was relevant to McClure’s mental and emotional state and the jury’s assessment of voluntary manslaughter.
- The court held that statements and information communicated to McClure about infidelity were admissible to show McClure’s state of mind and were not barred by the hearsay rule when not offered for their truth.
- The court held the trial court improperly excluded the psychiatrist’s testimony because Texas law permits consideration of the accused’s mental condition at the time of the offense and the prior relationship between the accused and the deceased, at both guilt-innocence and punishment.
- The exclusions were harmful because they prevented the jury from hearing central evidence supporting the defense theory of sudden passion rather than murder.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence bearing on the prior relationship between the accused and the deceased is admissible when relevant to the accused’s conduct and mental state at the time of the offense.
- Evidence of a spouse’s infidelity may be relevant to whether the accused acted under sudden passion arising from adequate cause and therefore may support submission and evaluation of voluntary manslaughter.
- Out-of-court statements offered to show their effect on the listener (the defendant’s state of mind), rather than to prove the truth of the statements, are not excluded as hearsay on that ground.
- Expert testimony concerning the accused’s mental and emotional condition at the time of the offense is admissible when it tends to make a material issue more or less probable, including issues tied to culpable mental state and punishment considerations.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the trial court’s exclusion of infidelity evidence and psychiatric testimony deprived the jury of relevant proof of McClure’s state of mind and mental condition, which were central to evaluating voluntary manslaughter and punishment.


McClure v. State, 575 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)