West v. State
Decision Date | 21 March 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 2122.,2122. |
Citation | 150 S.W.2d 363 |
Parties | WEST v. STATE et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Scurry County Court; Sterling Williams, Judge.
Proceeding by the State, acting through the Commissioners' Court of Scurry County, to condemn land belonging to Mrs. Ruby West. From an unsatisfactory judgment of the county court on appeal from the commissioners' decision, respondent appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
John E. Sentell and W. F. Newsome, both of Snyder, for appellant.
Stinson, Hair, Brooks & Duke, of Abilene, and Ben F. Thorpe, of Snyder, for appellees.
The State of Texas, acting through the Commissioners' Court of Scurry County, instituted condemnation proceedings against land belonging to Mrs. Ruby West. From the decision of the Commissioners Mrs. West appealed to the County Court of Scurry County. From an unsatisfactory judgment there, Mrs. West has appealed.
By defendant's sixth and seventh bills of exception it is shown that while one of the plaintiff's attorneys was making the opening argument he said to the jury: "You are the taxpayers" and, after further argument, "The taxpayers will have to pay the bill." The bill shows the argument was not then objected to and the court took no steps to suppress it. Bill No. 7 shows that while one of plaintiff's counsel was making the closing argument he stated to the jury, "We meet some unreasonable landowners." Then, after further argument, "You, as citizens and taxpayers, are directly interested in this suit." At another point in his argument he said: "When you go above $25 per acre you will be taking the money out of your own pockets." The bill then recites: "To which statements and arguments, counsel for defendant, Ruby West, duly objected to the court in open court and excepted thereto because each such argument was not supported by the evidence and dehors the record; was an appeal to the self-interest of the jury; was an attempt to align the jury as a party to the suit on the side of the plaintiff; appealed to the prejudice of the jury and was prejudicial to the rights of defendant, and counsel for said defendant moved the court to instruct the jury not to consider such arguments, which objections, exceptions and motion the court overruled and gave no instruction to the jury, to which action of the court, counsel for defendant, Ruby West, then and there excepted." (Italics ours)
The bills were approved without qualification.
In Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Jones, 73 Tex. 232, 235, 11 S.W. 185, 186, the assignment of error was: * * *." Relative thereto the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Gaines, said, in part: "The language of counsel in his closing argument was, as appellant insists, a direct appeal to the self-interest of the jury, and was calculated to sway them from a proper consideration of the testimony." The judgment was reversed.
In Humble O. & R. Co. v. Butler, Tex. Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 1043, 1044, this court, in an opinion by former Chief Justice Hickman, held the following arguments by plaintiff's counsel to be reversible error:
Relative to such argument this court said:
In Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Swanson, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 436, 440, an appeal to the jury to place themselves in the situation of the plaintiffs and do unto them as they would have done to their wives and children was condemned.
In Allen v. Denk, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W. 2d 303, 306, plaintiff's statement to the jury, "We hope you will consider these matters seriously and that you will do what you would want a jury to do if you were overtaken by a similar calamity", was held improper and prejudicial.
In Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Andrews, Tex.Civ.App., 169 S.W. 218, 222, the remarks of plaintiff's counsel in argument to the jury, in an action for failure to transmit a telephone call preventing plaintiff from attending the funeral of his half sister, to the effect that the verdict should allow such damages to compensate plaintiff for grief suffered as they (the jurors) would have suffered under the same circumstances, was held improper.
In Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. Castle, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 435, 440, plaintiff's argument to the jury, was held to be unwarranted and prejudicial.
In St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Boyd, 40 Tex.Civ.App. 93, 88 S.W. 509, a damage suit for personal injuries, the argument of plaintiff's counsel was that: The court held that the argument that "the public is interested in [the] case", followed by said appeal to the self-interest of the jury and an appeal to them as good citizens to protect the interest of the public by rendering a verdict for a large amount for plaintiff, was reversible error.
In Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Norwood, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 166, 168, plaintiff's counsel said to the jury: "Ah, Gentlemen, if your policy of insurance and your property must be taken from you upon the character of testimony that they offered here on this stand as proof, then I am going to tear mine up and yours is not worth the paper it is written on." This argument was held to be an appeal to the self-interest of the jurors and reversible error.
In Stewart v. Coats, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S. W.2d 421, 422, defendant's counsel, referring to a royalty deed which plaintiffs were seeking to cancel against defendants, said to the jury: "If you find against us in this case, you will set a precedent that won't let a title in this County be safe." With reference to such argument the court said it was "plainly calculated to have the subtle effect of creating prejudice and fear in the minds of the jury that a verdict rendered by them against defendants would result in impairing their own titles and likewise the titles of their neighbors." Though the argument was not objected to and complaint thereof was made for the first time on motion for new trial, because of the appeal to the self-interest of the jury the argument was held to be reversible error.
In Houston Electric Co. v. Potter, Tex. Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 754, 764, a suit by Potter to recover damages suffered by his wife in an automobile collision, plaintiff's counsel in his closing argument said: This argument, though not objected to at the time, was held...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cole v. City of Dallas
...exists in each of the numerous cases cited by appellee and in the original and concurring opinions in this case. In the case of West v. State, 150 S.W.2d 363, the Eastland Court of Civil Appeals restated the rule in Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi correctly but added a qualification whic......
-
Department of Public Works and Buildings For and in Behalf of People v. Sun Oil Co.
...(1940), 105 Colo. 366, 98 P.2d 283; State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Collins (1971), Okl., 482 P.2d 583; West v. State, (Tex.Civ.App.1941), 150 S.W.2d 363; Doty v. Jacksonville (1932), 106 Fla. 1, 142 So. 599). Although the trial court in the case at bar thought the defendants' timel......
-
Silberstein v. State
...was plainly improper and should not have been made. Robards v. State, 285 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Civ.App.1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.), West v. State, 150 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Civ.App.1941, no writ), State v. Bryan, 518 S.W.2d 928 (Tex.Civ.App.1975 no writ), 33 A.L.R.2d 442, 19 A.L.R.3rd 694, The question r......
-
Abramson v. City of San Angelo
...Beaumont, 141 S.W.2d 745; Wise v. City of Abilene, Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 141 S.W.2d 400, Writ Dismissed C. J.; and West v. State, Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 150 S.W.2d 363. We believe the rule stated by this court in State v. Doom, supra, and reiterated in the cases last above cited, to be c......