Villarreal v. State

Decision Date19 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 41922,41922
Citation440 S.W.2d 74
PartiesJuan D. VILLARREAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Donald J. Hand, Leo Dougherty, San Antonio, for appellant.

James E. Barlow, Dist. Atty., Sparta Bitsis, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

The conviction is for assault with intent to murder; the punishment seven years.

The record reflects that appellant shot Jose Chavez with a rifle. Chavez, a minister of a Baptist mission, was walking down a street in San Antonio with three others at about 9:30 in the evening when the shot hit him near the spinal column causing him to be paralyzed so that he would never be able to walk.

Maria Valdez testified that she saw appellant with a rifle in his hand, and another boy near her house; that when she told them some detectives were coming, she was called a stool pigeon, and a rock was thrown at her. A group of four or five people came by her house, and appellant asked them if they were from Alto or Ghost Town. When no one replied, appellant fired the rifle and hit Chavez.

There was testimony that the Alto and Ghost Town gangs had been involved in violence in her neighborhood. Detective Steve Salas testified that the two gangs had been at war with each other for several years.

It is contended that reversible error was committed during the argument to the jury. M. C. Gonzales, the Assistant District Attorney, while discussing the testimony of the witness Juan Valdez stated, '* * * a fourteen year old kid. If you think that doesn't take any guts, for them to come up here. * * *' The District Attorney, James E. Barlow, made a similar statement about the witness Maria Valdez coming to testify and standing her ground. Objections that these arguments were outside the record were overruled. The arguments complained of were reasonable deductions from the evidence. Cavazos v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 582.

The District Attorney further stated to the jury, 'And now as you have an opportunity for the first time in your lives to do something about helping this county be a better county--I can't do it--.' An objection was made that such argument was a call on the conscience of the community, and it suggested to the jury that they convict on matters not in the record. The objection was overruled.

The argument does not state a community wish; it was a proper plea for law enforcement. No error is shown. Perbetsky v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 471; Henderson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 573, 295...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Olson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 26, 1969
    ...most of the argument was based on a reasonable deduction from the evidence or was a proper plea for law enforcement. Villarreal v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 74; Perbetsky v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 471, and Henderson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 573, 295 S.W.2d 215. While some of the......
  • Ward v. State, 44142
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 23, 1971
    ...plea for 200 years, 9 the argument does not constitute reversible error. Bowman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 446 S.W.2d 320; Villarreal v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 74; Parks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 769; Lummus v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 376 S.W.2d 346. See also Hendrix v. State, Tex.C......
  • Inthisan v. State, No. 07-02-0263-CR (TX 5/10/2005)
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 10, 2005
    ...or expects a certain result is improper. See Decker v. State, 717 S.W.2d 903, 908-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Villarreal v. State, 440 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). In this case, the State's argument never reached the point that it argued the community expected a conviction. At best,......
  • Randolph v. State, 43459
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 24, 1971
    ...bad shape--.' This was a plea for law enforcement and not improper argument. Asay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 903; Villarreal v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 74. Grounds of error Two and Three are The judgment is affirmed. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT