Horner v. State, 47580
Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 47580,47580 |
Citation | 508 S.W.2d 371 |
Parties | Robert larry HORNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mark Pool, Greenville, for appellant.
Larry Miller, Dist. Atty., Greenville, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BILL J. CORNELIUS, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted of murder with malice and assessed punishment at seventy-nine years confinement. The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
The first ground of error urges that a mistrial should have been declared when the prosecuting attorney made the following comment in his jury summation at the guilt-innocence stage of the trial:
Appellant's motion for mistrial was denied.
For comments to be prejudicial error as constituting references to the accused's failure to testify, the inference that the accused's failure to testify is being referred to must be a necessary one. Richardson v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 356 S.W.2d 676; Lewis v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 514, 236 S.W.2d 812. The comment complained of here does not fall into that category. In fact, it appears that the comment was referring to defense counsel's propensity to talk about what others did on the night of the murder and his failure to talk about the appellant's Actions '. . . out there on that night.' Ground of Error Number One is overruled.
Appellant next asserts that the trial court should have declared a mistrial when the prosecuting attorney on voir dire examination of the jury panel made the following comment:
Objection to the comment was sustained and the Court at that time instructed the jury panel as follows:
Appellant's motion for a mistrial was denied.
Even if the quoted comment constituted error, the trial court's oral instruction and the written instruction on punishment which was given in the Court's charge were sufficient to cure any error. Bradley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 896; Lenzi v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 99; Gray v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 477 S.W.2d 635. Ground of Error Number Two is overruled.
In his third ground of error, appellant contends he should have been allowed to put the witness Raymond Rodriguez on the stand in order that his refusal to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination (which refusal was known in advance by the defense, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rollins
...v. Greene, 445 Pa. 228, 285 A.2d 865, 867 (1971); State v. Hughes, 328 S.C. 146, 493 S.E.2d 821, 824 (1997); Horner v. State, 508 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); see generally Wayne R. Lafave, Jerold H. Israel, and Nancy J. King, 5 Criminal Procedure § 24.4(c) (2d ed. & 2005 Supp.); Ann......
-
Gray v. State
...209 N.J.Super. 127, 506 A.2d 1295, 1298 (A.D.1986); Commonwealth v. Greene, 445 Pa. 228, 285 A.2d 865, 867 (1971); Horner v. State, 508 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); State v. Hughes, 328 S.C. 146, 493 S.E.2d 821, 823-25 (S.C.1997). On the other hand, a number of courts have recognized ......
-
State v. Heard
...v. Hughes , 328 S.C. 146, 493 S.E.2d 821, 823–24 (1997) ; State v. Rollins , 188 S.W.3d 553, 569–70 (Tenn. 2006) ; Horner v. State , 508 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ; State v. Travis , 541 P.2d 797, 798–99 (Utah 1975) ; State v. Heft , 185 Wis.2d 288, 517 N.W.2d 494, 501 (1994). ......
-
Porth v. State
...209 N.J.Super. 127, 506 A.2d 1295, 1298 (A.D.1986); Commonwealth v. Greene, 445 Pa. 228, 285 A.2d 865, 867 (1971); Horner v. State, 508 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Other jurisdictions permit the defense to call these witnesses subject to the rules of relevancy--401 to 403. People v. ......
-
Self-Incrimination
...v. State , 726 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986) (defendant has no right to have witness invoke right in presence of jury); Horner v. State , 508 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Devia v. State , 718 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1986, no pet .). §5:63 Motion in Limine—Witness Invoking Fifth Amend......
-
Self-incrimination
..., 726 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (defendant has no right to have witness invoke right in presence of jury); Horner v. State , 508 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Devia v. State , 718 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App. —Beaumont 1986, no pet .). §5:63 Motion in Limine—Witness Invoking Fifth Amen......
-
Table of cases
...1992, no pet. ), §15:291 Hooker v. State , 932 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996, no pet .), §15:312; Form 15-67 Horner v. State , 508 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974), §5:62 Howard v. State, 744 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet .), Form 10-13 Hubbard v. State, 912 S.W.2......