Villarreal v. State
Decision Date | 19 March 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 41922,41922 |
Citation | 440 S.W.2d 74 |
Parties | Juan D. VILLARREAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas 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.
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, 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-
Olson v. State
...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
...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)
...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
...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. ...