Overstreet v. State
Citation | 470 S.W.2d 653 |
Decision Date | 16 September 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 44122,44122 |
Parties | Brenda Lou OVERSTREET, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael L. Morrow, Dallas (Court appointed on appeal), for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle and Robert E. Whaley, Asst. Dist. Attys., 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 15 years.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not challenged. Suffice it to say that the evidence reflects the appellant and Billy Wayne McCarter entered a grocery store in Seagoville, Texas, on December 22, 1968, at approximately 7:30 p.m. and at gunpoint robbed James Henderson and his wife of approximately $139.99.
All of appellant's grounds of error relate to jury argument.
First, she complains of the prosecutor's argument at the guilt stage of the trial that
Shortly thereafter he argued:
To the first complained of argument the court sustained appellant's most general objection and instructed the jury to disregard, though denying the motion for mistrial. To the second argument there was no objection at all.
Relying upon Pennington v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 130, 345 S.W.2d 527, the appellant contends such argument was improper as an attempt to induce the jury to convict because the people of the community desired or expected a conviction, and thus inject a new and harmful fact into the evidence. See also Cox v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 134, 247 S.W.2d 262, 263.
We cannot agree with such interpretation. The argument was a plea for law enforcement rather than an urging of the jury to convict because of the community's desires or expectations. Further, the objection was sustained and the jury instructed to disregard one portion of the argument and no objection was made to the other. Clearly no error is presented.
The remaining grounds of error relate to the prosecutor's jury argument at the penalty stage of the bifurcated trial.
Although she did not testify at the guilt stage of the proceedings, the appellant testified at the hearing on punishment in support of her motion for probation. Indicating she did not agree with the jury's finding of guilt, she asked for their leniency. She was not cross-examined. Appellant's counsel in his argument urged the jury to grant probation, discussing the possible probationary conditions including restitution.
First, the appellant complains that the prosecutor in his closing argument argued law and evidence not given to the jury and commented on her failure to testify when he argued there were three separate reasons for punishment and stated:
Appellant then objected that such argument was a direct reference to her
The objection was overruled and motion for mistrial was denied. No relief in form of a jury instruction was requested.
It is true that the failure of an accused in a criminal case to testify in his own behalf may not be the subject of comment in argument. See Article 38.08, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. 'The prohibition extends to references to failure to testify at a former trial, an examining trial, a hearing on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any other stage in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cannon v. State
...or indirect allusion thereto. Ramos v. State, 419 S.W.2d 359, 367 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), and cases there cited; Overstreet v. State [470 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) ], supra; Koller v. State, 518 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); McDaniel v. State [524 S.W.2d 68 (Tex.Cr.App.1975) ], supra; Hicks v......
-
Brock v. State
...and the adverse effect of any reference to the accused's failure to testify is not generally cured by instruction. Overstreet v. State, 470 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); 56 Tex.Jur.2d, Trial, Secs. 266 and 336; Branch's Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 395. "It is well settled in this State that for ......
-
Vaughn v. State
...to the State's position, the fact that appellant made a motion for probation is irrelevant in this case. In Overstreet v. State, 470 S.W.2d 653, 654-55 (Tex.Crim.App.1971), the court found that the prosecutor's comment as to the defendant's lack of remorse was not necessarily reversible err......
-
Montoya v. State
...is not generally cured by an instruction to the jury. See also: Owen v. State, 656 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Overstreet v. State, 470 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Thus, given a direct reference to the accused's failure to testify, an instruction to disregard is of dubious Johnson shoul......