Summers v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 22886.,22886. |
| Citation | 182 S.W.2d 720 |
| Parties | SUMMERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County; J. Frank Wilson, Special Judge.
James Horace Summers was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Maury Hughes, of Dallas, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is an assault with intent to commit rape. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of fifteen years.
The only controverted issue in the case is whether the appellant's mind was so deranged from disease or the recent use of ardent spirits, or both, that he did not know the particular act which he was doing was wrong; in other words, whether or not he had sufficient mental capacity to understand and distinguish between the right and the wrong. These issues were properly submitted to the jury by the court in an appropriate instruction and no complaint is made thereof by the appellant.
He brings forward several complaints relative to the remarks made by the Assistant District Attorney in his argument to the jury. We do not deem it necessary to set out the argument in full. Suffice it to say that Bill of Exception No. 3 discloses that the prosecuting attorney therein discussed the probability that the prosecutrix would some day become a mother, and after having undergone the experience related by her, stated that instead of having lovely children, she would "give birth to idiots and deformed imbeciles". This argument was not a proper deduction from any evidence in the case and should not have been made.
Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the following argument:
This argument was objected to on the ground that it was not a proper deduction from any evidence; that it was an unsworn statement by the Assistant District Attorney, and was inflammatory and highly prejudicial to the rights of the appellant. We fail to understand just why a prosecuting attorney would depart from the well-established rules requiring that arguments be based upon evidence legally introduced in the case. This was an unsworn statement by the Assistant District Attorney, and so far as the record discloses, the jury had never heard of it until it was brought to their attention by the argument complained of. Just what the purpose of the Assistant District Attorney was other than to inflame the minds of the jury and prejudice them against the appellant, we are unable to understand. By this argument the prosecuting attorney was striking at the appellant over the shoulders of his counsel in an endeavor to inflame the minds of the jury to his prejudice. The accused is entitled to a fair trial without reference to outside influence.
In the case of Davis v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 55 S.W. 340, Judge Davidson, in passing on a question similar to the one under consideration, said: "It would seem to be an easy matter, even in an exciting criminal trial, for attorneys to keep within the record, and discuss the issues suggested by the evidence."
It must be borne in mind that in cases of this nature, the human mind is very susceptible to inflammatory remarks, and prosecuting attorneys should carefully guard against prejudicing the rights of a person charged with an offense of this character.
We have reached the conclusion that the remarks of the Assistant District Attorney, as complained of in Bill of Exceptions No. 2, are so prejudicial and so inflammatory that we are unwilling to permit the judgment of conviction to stand.
Bill of Exception No. 4 complains of certain testimony given by one of the officers who went to the appellant's home at 3 a.m. on the night in question to interview...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cockrell v. State
...the State's prejudicial argument would not have sufficed to have removed the prejudice. Id. at 90. See also, Summers v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 519, 182 S.W.2d 720 (1944). In Fuentes v. State, 664 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), we held the State made an improper remark as to the moral character......
-
Wead v. State
...continue to depart from the well established rules for proper jury argument. Wilson, 938 S.W.2d at 62 (quoting Summers v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 519, 182 S.W.2d 720, 721 (1944)); Everett v. State, 707 S.W.2d 638, 641 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Lomas v. State, 707 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App.1986)......
-
Wilson v. State
...requires the Court to consider the probable effect of holding the State's improper argument harmless. In Summers v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 519, 182 S.W.2d 720, 721 (1944), this Court reversed on the basis of an improper argument made by the prosecutor in which he argued prejudicial facts whic......
-
Raffaelli v. State, 06-93-00062-CR
...from the well-established rules requiring that arguments be based upon evidence legally introduced in the case." Summers v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 519, 182 S.W.2d 720, 721 (1944). Here, when the prosecutor first argued outside the record, the trial court sustained the defense objection and in......