Vineyard v. State, 18707.
| Citation | 100 S.W.2d 362 |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 18707.,18707. |
| Parties | VINEYARD v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wheeler County; W. R. Ewing, Judge.
Dorris Vineyard was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Reynolds & Heare and D. G. Reynolds, all of Shamrock, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The proof on the part of the State was to the effect that appellant and Alvin Perrin stole some automobile wheels and tires from J. A. Miller. Recently after the theft officers found said property in the possession of appellant. Perrin testified to the effect that he and appellant stole said property. Appellant did not testify.
It is shown in bill of exception No. 1 that in argument to the jury the district attorney used language as follows: "The recent possession, unexplained, of stolen property is sufficient to warrant a conviction and sustain same." Appellant objected to said remarks on the ground that they constituted a reference to his failure to testify. It is unnecessary to determine whether the objection was well taken. See Berry v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 559, 223 S.W. 212. The bill of exception is deficient in failing to show that only appellant was in a position to explain his possession of the stolen property.
The judgment is affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borjan v. State
...facts harmful to the accused into the trial proceedings. Phillips v. State, 701 S.W.2d 875, 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Vineyard v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 476, 100 S.W.2d 362 (1973). Thus, a prosecutor is clearly prohibited from making reference during final argument to extraneous offenses for whi......
-
Dickinson v. State
...argument, or the prosecuting attorney injects through his argument some new and harmful fact into the case. Vineyard v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 476, 100 S.W.2d 362 (1937). Art. 38.08, V.A.C.C.P., expressly provides that if the accused invokes his right not to testify during his trial, such sha......
-
State v. Edgeworth, 17817
...Cal.App. 402, 158 P. 336; People v. Marcus, 246 N.Y. 637, 159 N.E. 682; Starr v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 302, 74 P.2d 1174; Vineyard v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 476, 100 S.W.2d 362; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1098, p. Defendant having requested service of an attorney and having exercised such right, th......
-
Smith v. State, No. 06-05-00062-CR (TX 1/13/2006)
...from outside the record. Wilson v. State, 938 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Borjan, 787 S.W.2d at 56-57; Vineyard v. State, 131 Tex. Crim. 476, 100 S.W.2d 362 (1937). Argument is permissible if it draws from the facts in evidence inferences which are reasonable, fair and legitimate,......