Jones v. State, 47432
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47432,47432 |
| Parties | Dennis Earl JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John F. Simmons, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Robert T. Baskett, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder with malice; the punishment, 999 years.
Appellant urges three grounds of error, none of which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
In his first ground, appellant contends that the jury's verdict is cruel and unusual punishment. This Court has held that if the penalty is within the prescribed limits set by the Legislature the jury's verdict will not be disturbed. In the very recent opinion of this Court in Angle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 501 S.W.2d 99, this principle was reaffirmed. No error is shown.
In ground number two, appellant complains of certain sidebar remarks of the prosecutor made during the cross-examination of appellant. Appellant gives four 'examples' of the comments in question.
No further relief was requested. Having received all the relief requested, no error is shown. Cazares v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 110.
(2) 'A (Appellant): As I have been put in fear of my life many times.
'Q (Prosecutor): I suspect you have, with good cause.
We do not find that the remark was so prejudicial that the trial court's instruction could not cure it. No reversible error is shown. Cazares v. State, supra.
(3) The objection leveled in the trial court at the prosecutor's remarks in this instance was that they constituted a narrative. Since the complaint now made was not made in the trial court, nothing is presented for review. Bacon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 512.
(4) The record reflects that no objection was made to the final 'example' of a sidebar remark. Nothing is presented for review. Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 512.
(4) The record reflects that no objection was made to the final 'example' of a sidebar remark. Nothing is presented for review.
In his final ground of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give his requested charge on murder without malice during the guilt or innocence phase of the trial.
The record reflects that appellant and Thomas Harris, who was charged with the same offense in a companion case, flagged down a truck in south Dallas in the early morning hours of November 10, 1971, after several hours of drinking beer. Harris, testifying as a witness for the State, related that he and appellant had found themselves short of money and decided to 'take some'. During the course of the events which followed, Harris took over the task of driving the truck. In the process he sideswiped a telephone pole; he testified that as he did so be became nervous because he had seen a police car parked nearby. Dallas Police Officer Clark testified that he and his partner, Johnnie Hartwell, observed the truck strike the pole and then continue down the street, swerving and weaving across the road. The truck finally came to a stop when it hit a second telephone pole. Appellant testified that this second collision with a telephone pole knocked him from his seat on the passenger side of the truck, causing him to strike his head on the dashboard, dazing him. Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Temple v. State
...Appeals held that the trial court's instruction to disregard cured the improper sidebar remark. Id.; see also Jones v. State, 504 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (holding instruction to disregard sufficient when prosecutor responded, “I suspect you have, with good cause,” after defendan......
-
Duffy v. State
...Williams v. State, 549 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Sheppard v. State, 545 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Jones v. State, 504 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Barnes v. State, 502 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). However, in his objection, counsel for appellant simply asked that the remark be str......
-
Temple v. State Of Tex.
...Appeals held that the trial court's instruction to disregard cured the improper sidebar remark. Id.; see also Jones v. State, 504 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (holding instruction to disregard sufficient when prosecutor responded, "I suspect you have, with good cause," after defen......
-
Luck v. State
...unless there is evidence that the offense occurred under the influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. See, Jones v. State, 504 S.W.2d 906, Tex.Cr.App.; Foster v. State, 493 S.W.2d 812, In the instant case, we can find no evidence presented at trial which would raise the i......