Clarence Allen Lackey, Appellant v. the State of Texas, Appellee

Summary

The Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for a new competency determination, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing the appellant’s request for a specific psychiatrist, in limiting funding for expert investigation, in admitting the roommate’s testimony despite no common‑law marriage, in admitting the victim photographs, and in finding that Carroll Johnson’s consent to search was voluntary and therefore the seized evidence was admissible. The Court also held that the trial court properly refused additional mitigation instructions and that the psychologist’s rebuttal testimony was not required. Separate dissenting opinions argue that the consent was not voluntary and that the conviction should be reversed.