Bray v. State, 44641
Decision Date | 29 March 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 44641,44641 |
Citation | 478 S.W.2d 89 |
Parties | Reginald James BRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mike Morrow, Kerry P. FitzGerald, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Robert T. Baskett, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assault where the punishment was assessed at 20 years.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged, but we are confronted with appellant's complaint that the remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his jury argument at the guilt stage of the trial constituted a personal attack on the 'integrity and competence of appellant's attorney.' He urges that said remarks could only act 'to the irreparable injury and prejudice of the appellant.'
The prosecutor's argument complained of was as follows:
'Our client doesn't sit here at the counsel table with us and our client is not here to confer with us, we represent you folks. We represent the people here in this County. That's who are (sic) employer is and suffice it to say Ladies and Gentlemen I am grateful and I shall be eternally grateful that you are the people that are my employers and not the likes of him and that I am not representing this sort of thing. Rest assured I am very happy about that. I am grateful that I don't have to make my living that way.
Appellant's counsel was court appointed. As an officer of the court, he accepted the appointment and undertook the defense of this indigent appellant. Such undertaking was in the finest tradition of the Texas and American Bars. Following the impact of statutory enactments and the decision of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, trial courts have called upon many members of the bar to represent indigent defendants--lawyers who would not have otherwise been involved in the trial of a criminal case.
Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., vol. 1A, art. XIII, § 3, Canons 4 & 5 (Canons of Ethics, State Bar Rules) pp. 233--234, in effect at the time of the trial, reads as follows:
It is widely recognized that these canons of ethics are not generally understood by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dinkins v. State
...from comment that defense counsel was paid to "manufacture evidence" and "get this defendant off the hook"); and, Bray v. State, 478 S.W.2d 89, 89-90 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) (reversible error resulted from comment that prosecutor was grateful for not having to represent someone like defendant). M......
-
Johnson v. State
...(Tex.Cr.App.1973); Anderson v. State, 525 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Boyde v. State, 513 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Bray v. State, 478 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Houston v. Estelle, 569 F.2d 372 (5th Cir. 1978); Skuy v. U. S., 261 F. 316 (10th Cir. 1919). See also Brandon v. State, s......
-
Cockrell v. State
...judge sustained the objection and instructed the jury not to consider the argument, this Court ordered a reversal. In Bray v. State, 478 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the prosecutor ... We represent the people here in this County. That's who are employer is and suffice it to say Ladies and G......
-
Hughes v. State
...See, Fuentes v. State, 664 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Boyde v. State, 513 S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Bray v. State, 478 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). In Boyde and Gomez we noted that the general public does not understand the concept that defense attorneys are under an ethical......