Hall v. State, 45804
Decision Date | 04 April 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 45804,45804 |
Citation | 492 S.W.2d 512 |
Parties | Robert Lee HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John M. Groce, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Doug Crouch, Dist. Atty., Timothy E. Thompson, George McManus, J. J. Heinemann, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, States Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of robbery by assault; punishment was assessed at 50 years' confinement.
Five grounds of error are alleged. The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
Appellant initially contends that the trial court erred in commenting on the weight of the evidence. We are referred to that portion of the prosecutor's argument to the jury wherein he stated:
'Ladies and Gentlemen, look at the witnesses we have presented to you and then look at the demeanor of the Defendant as he sits here asleep at the counsel table, as he sits and sleeps during the jury argument.
It is appellant's contention that when the judge said, 'All right, you have three minutes,' he was, in effect, agreeing with the State that they had proven their case by the evidence presented. We cannot agree. Regardless, when the statement was made, no objection was made and the prosecutor went on to conclude his argument. There is nothing to review. Gondek v. State, 491 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Cr.App., 1973).
Another complaint is made in reference to the final argument stage of the trial proceedings. Defense counsel was arguing when the following colloquy occurred:
Appellant points our that he did not take the stand during this phase of the trial. Therefore, he urges that the prosecutor's objection could only be taken as a direct comment on appellant's failure to testify, thus violating Article 38.08 of the Vernon's Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
We conclude that the prosecutor's statement, if at all error, was completely invited. Hefley v. State, 489 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Also, no exception was taken to the judge's ruling nor was an instruction to disregard requested. No error is shown.
In his third and fourth grounds, appellant again complains of improper jury argument. The prosecutor stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGee v. State
...v. State, 502 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (specific objection preferred, but blanket objection will preserve error); Hall v. State, 492 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Joines v. State, 482 S.W.2d 205 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (objection must be timely); Archer v. State, 474 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Cri......
-
Casarez v. State
...attorney argued that attorney did not know what appellant's state of mind was at time of commission of crime); Hall v. State, 492 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (appellant's attorney argued that appellant denied being present at scene of crime when record contained no evidence of any a......
-
Phillips v. State, 48515
...because of a lack of compliance with the requirements of Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P. Frazier v. State, fn. 2 supra; Hall v. State, 492 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Mason v. State, 495 S.W.2d 248, 250 Moreover, the ground of error is an incorrect statement of the law. The indictment......
-
Houston v. State, 47742
...twenty are merely stated, without argument or authority. Therefore, they too are improperly presented under Art. 40.09, V.A.C.C.P. See Hall v. State, 492 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), and Mason v. State, 495 S.W.2d 248 Appellant's eleventh ground of error alleges that jury misconduct occurr......