Wade v. State, 23917.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 23917.,23917. |
| Citation | 208 S.W.2d 101 |
| Parties | WADE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Tom Green County Court; I. J. Curtsinger, Judge.
Clarence L. Wade was convicted of driving on a public highway while intoxicated, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
No appearance for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted on a charge of driving on a public highway while intoxicated, and assessed a fine of one hundred dollars.
The evidence of the State is amply sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. However, appellant took the witness stand and denied that he was intoxicated and brought several witnesses, including his wife and some boys with whom he had worked and associated, who gave positive testimony in his favor on the subject. The only issue before the jury was whether or not he was intoxicated.
In his concluding argument the county attorney said, as shown by the only bill of exception in the case: "It is well known that every time any colored boy who is charged with any offense in this court, that all of his other colored friends will come into court and swear just anything necessary to get him out of it." The bill further shows that objection was immediately made to this argument on the ground that it was prejudicial, was an appeal to race prejudice, was the unsworn testimony of the county attorney, not in answer to any argument of the defense and not supported by any evidence in the case. The court approved the bill with this statement.
In his brief the State's Attorney says, "In our opinion, the argument complained of was improper, in that the prosecuting attorney was asserting a fact not in the record, and which was prejudicial to the accused." He submits, however, that while the argument should be condemned, and the trial judge should have instructed the jury to disregard it, nevertheless, that in as much as the fine was only one hundred dollars, no great prejudice was shown.
We agree with the statement as to the nature of the argument, and the duty of the trial judge, but we are unable to say that no harm resulted to appellant by reason thereof. Even though the State's witnesses were police officers, men of responsibility, whose testimony was straight-forward and clear-cut, it is not for this Court to say that with a fair presentation the jury would have followed their testimony, contradicted as it was by the several witnesses....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McBride v. State
...of appellant's cited cases and they are not in point: Allison v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 200, 248 S.W.2d 147 (1952) and Wade v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 208 S.W.2d 101 (1948) involved Black defendants and jury arguments discrediting Black witnesses; Stein v. State, 492 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Crim.Ap......
-
Lovelace v. State
...of appellant's guilt was not so overwhelming that the State's improper argument could be classified as harmless error. Wade v. State, 208 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Tex.Cr.App.1948). Additionally, appellant's counsel's repeated objections to the prosecutor's argument were overruled by the court. Ther......
-
Allison v. State, 25703
...subject to the objection that it was unsworn testimony of the district attorney and was an appeal to racial prejudice. Wade v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 208 S.W.2d 101. The implication was clear that State's counsel sought to condemn as a class all testimony coming from members of the color......
- Dixon v. State, 24022.