The Texas Supreme Court lifts the stay of execution of Robert Roberson

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers updated on top Texas news.

---

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday lifted its temporary stay on the execution of Robert Roberson, saying subpoenas from Texas lawmakers cannot be used to halt the scheduled executions of death row inmates. But the ruling came after Roberson’s execution, scheduled for Oct. 17, was delayed so the state’s highest civil court could rule on a dispute over the separation of powers between the branches of state government. Friday’s ruling did not wade into Roberson’s guilt or innocence.

The court earlier paused Roberson’s execution after the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee subpoenaed the death row inmate and invited the 57-year-old East Texan convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter to testify at his trial at the Texas Capitol in four days. after his scheduled execution.

“We conclude that, under these circumstances, the committee’s authority to compel testimony does not include the power to override the scheduled legal process leading to an execution,” Friday’s court ruling said.

That House committee subpoena sparked an unprecedented question about the state constitution’s separation of powers — does the subpoena of legislative members take precedence over the executive branch’s power to carry out a death sentence, or is it the other way around?

“By requiring his testimony at a date after the scheduled execution, the subpoena created a conflict involving all three branches of government,” the justices wrote Friday.

Roberson’s death sentence remains intact, but a new execution must be scheduled. The Supreme Court ruling noted that there is time for Roberson’s testimony to be heard by the committee.

“If the committee still wishes to obtain his testimony, we assume that the (Texas Department of Criminal Justice) Division may reasonably grant a new subpoena,” the court order said. “As long as a subpoena is issued in a manner that does not unavoidably block a planned execution, there is nothing in our possession that prevents the committee from seeking legal relief in the ordinary way to compel the testimony of a witness.”

State Reps. Joe Moody, an El Paso Democrat, and Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican, said in a joint statement that while it was never their committee’s intent to use the subpoena to delay an execution, they were pleased the court affirmed the writ and their action were valid.

“The Supreme Court strongly reinforced our belief that our committee can indeed obtain Mr. Roberson’s testimony and made clear that it expects the executive branch of government to accommodate us in doing so,” the two lawmakers said. “That has been our position all along, and we look forward to working with the Executive Branch to do just that.”

Here’s what you need to know.

The background: Roberson was convicted of murdering his chronically ill 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis, who Roberson said in 2002 had fallen from the bed at the family’s home in Palestine before rushing her to the emergency room. A doctor diagnosed Nikki with shaken baby syndrome, which suggests abuse.

Roberson’s defense attorney did not dispute the diagnosis at trial, arguing only that Roberson did not intend to kill his daughter. But in the years since the trial, new scientific and medical evidence has emerged showing that the symptoms associated with shaken baby syndrome could also point to naturally occurring medical conditions.

In several appeals over the past two decades, experts raised evidence that Nikki had undiagnosed pneumonia in the days before her fall, and that it developed into sepsis and suppressed her breathing. She was also prescribed medication that was no longer given to infants.

During an October 2024 legal hearing, a juror in Roberson’s trial said she would not have convicted Roberson if she had been presented with all of Nikki’s medical records, including a CT scan and toxicology report. Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, meanwhile, maintain that Roberson is guilty and that the case has already been properly adjudicated.

,

Why the Texas House Committee Sued: Committee members say they urged Roberson to testify after hearing expert testimony about Texas’ 2013 junk science law, which allows courts to overturn a conviction when the scientific evidence at the center of the case has been discredited. Roberson has tried unsuccessfully to use the law to win a new trial.

After the House committee issued the subpoena, they obtained a temporary restraining order from a Travis County civil court to halt Roberson’s execution. Paxton then filed a petition with the Criminal Court of Appeals on behalf of the TDCJ, asking the state’s highest criminal court to vacate that decision because the civil court did not have jurisdiction over the case. The appeals court ruled in Paxton’s favor.

But the House committee responded by filing an emergency case with the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest civil court. The House argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not have jurisdiction over the case because a writ is a civil matter. The Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction to stay the execution and asked each side to submit legal briefs before issuing a final ruling.

What the state argued: Paxton successfully argued that the court’s order compelling the state to suspend a legally imposed criminal sentence “violates the separation of powers.”

“The relief sought by the House committee here usurps the governor’s exclusive authority to grant a 30-day stay in a death case,” Paxton’s office wrote in a legal brief. “Thus, the Constitution’s specific powers to the CCA and the Governor with respect to criminal sentences and temporary stays, respectively, necessarily trump any general subpoena power.”

What the House Committee argued: Lawmakers, including Committee Chairman Joe Moody, D-El Paso, and Committeeman Jeff Leach, R-Plano, argued that Paxton’s office prevented the TDCJ from complying with the subpoena and blocked him, Roberson, from testifying. They said issuing the subpoena did not usurp another department’s powers because Roberson’s execution was only temporarily halted and lawmakers are constitutionally allowed to hear testimony to inform policymaking.

“Given the disagreement over some facts in Roberson’s case, the committee felt it was important to hear from him in person to assess his credibility as a witness,” House members argued in a legal brief.

Wider effect: The state Supreme Court’s decision in this case does not directly affect whether or not Roberson is granted a new trial, as that decision would be made by a criminal court. But it has consequences for the legislative assembly’s writ power. And testimony from a death row inmate at the State Capitol on his case would be historic.

By January 2025, three of the five appeals court judges who allowed Roberson’s execution will no longer be on the court. If Roberson’s case somehow comes back before that court and any of the new justices take a different position, the votes could shift in Roberson’s favor.

The court’s decision answered a new legal question about whether a legislative subpoena or an enforcement order takes precedence.

“I think what we’re seeing is checks and balances between different branches of government, which is what the constitutional vision was in the United States and was largely replicated in Texas,” said Marc Levin, chief policy adviser at the Council on Criminal Justice . “It’s healthy that it happens.”