Pollard v. State, 53554
Decision Date | 22 June 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 53554,53554 |
Citation | 552 S.W.2d 475 |
Parties | John A. POLLARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
BROWN, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated kidnapping. Appellant was tried before a jury which assessed punishment at life in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged; therefore, only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary. The record reflects that the appellant forced Mrs. D R S 's car to the side of the road and then forced Mrs. S and her two-year-old daughter into his own car. Appellant drove to an isolated area near Killeen where he ordered Mrs. S to disrobe. Appellant then forced Mrs. S to submit to sexual intercourse by threats that something would happen to her child. Mrs. S testified that after appellant raped her she saw the lights of an approaching car. Appellant was startled by the lights and began to drive away so Mrs. S grabbed her child and ran toward the approaching car which was a Killeen police vehicle. The police officer came to Mrs. S 's aid and radioed for assistance in apprehending appellant.
In his sole ground of error appellant contends that the prosecutor made an improper jury argument which constituted a comment on appellant's failure to testify.
During closing argument to the jury at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial the prosecutor made the following remarks:
The prosecutor's remark about a tire tool refers to appellant's attempt to impeach Mrs. S 's testimony about her abduction. She testified at trial that after appellant forced her car off the road he approached her holding a tire tool in his hand. On cross-examination appellant impeached her testimony with her prior written statement to the police wherein she stated that appellant approached her with something in his hand. The prior statement did not identify the object as a tire tool. During jury argument, appellant's counsel made reference to the fact that Mrs. S had not mentioned anything about a tire tool until she took the witness stand. The State contends, therefore, that the prosecutor's remarks quoted above were invited by defense counsel. We disagree.
Before an argument of the prosecution will constitute a comment on the failure of the accused to testify, the language used must be looked to from the standpoint of the jury, and the implication that the language used had reference to the accused must be a necessary one. It is not sufficient that the language might be construed as an implied or indirect allusion. Nowlin v. State, 507 S.W.2d 534 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Turner v. State, 504 S.W.2d 843 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
A statement that certain evidence is uncontroverted or unrefuted or uncontradicted does not constitute a comment on the accused's failure to testify...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gibbs
...where the record indicates that persons other than the accused could have offered contradictory testimony.' Pollard v. State, 552 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex. Ct.Crim.App.1977); see also State v. Blackman, 201 Ariz. 527, 38 P.3d 1192, 1210 (Ct.App.2002) (`The State may comment that facts in the ca......
-
Gardner v. State
...to testify offends both our State and Federal Constitutions. Nickens v. State, 604 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Pollard v. State, 552 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The language of such a comment must be either manifestly intended, or of such a character that the jury would naturally and ne......
-
State v. Scutchings
...where the record indicates that persons other than the accused could have offered contradictory testimony." Pollard v. State, 552 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex.Ct.Crim. App.1977); see also State v. Blackman, 201 Ariz. 527, 38 P.3d 1192, 1210 (Ct.App.2002) ("The State may comment that facts in the ca......
-
Nickens v. State
...on a defendant's failure to testify offends both our State and Federal Constitutions as well as Article 38.08, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Pollard v. State, 552 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Bird v. State, 527 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The language of such a comment must be either manifestly in......