Williams v. State
Decision Date | 12 June 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 13-85-269-CR,13-85-269-CR |
Citation | 712 S.W.2d 835 |
Parties | Curtis WILLIAMS, a/k/a Curtis Marshall, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. Manuel Banales, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Grant Jones, Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, for appellee.
Before NYE, C.J. and KENNEDY and SEERDEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of sexual assault. A jury assessed appellant's punishment at ten years' confinement and a five thousand dollar fine, each probated for ten years. Appellant brings six grounds of error primarily complaining of prosecutorial misconduct. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is not challenged. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In his first two grounds of error, appellant complains of two remarks made by the prosecutor during the jury voir dire examination, revealing to the jury his personal opinion that probation was not an appropriate punishment in cases such as this. While we agree that the prosecutor's personal opinion as to whether probation was appropriate was irrelevant and inappropriate, in this instance we fail to find that appellant was harmed. Although the jury was authorized to assess appellant's punishment at as much as twenty years' imprisonment and a ten thousand dollar fine, the jury only assessed the appellant ten years and a five thousand dollar fine and recommended probation for both the imprisonment and the fine. Appellant was obviously not harmed by either of the prosecutor's remarks regarding probation. In addition, the trial court promptly sustained appellant's objections to both remarks and instructed the jury to disregard them, thereby curing any possible error. See Boyd v. State, 643 S.W.2d 700, 706-07 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). Appellant's first two grounds of error are overruled.
In his fifth ground of error, appellant complains of improper jury argument by the prosecutor in the guilt/innocence phase when he referred to appellant as a "parasite." Appellant objected to the reference, and the jury received another instruction to disregard. His motion for mistrial was denied.
In reviewing whether an improper comment by a prosecutor constitutes reversible error, the test is whether, in the light of the record as a whole, the comment was: 1) extreme or manifestly improper, harmful, and prejudicial; 2) violative of a mandatory statute; or 3) harmful to the accused because it injected damaging new facts into the trial proceeding. Brooks v. State, 642 S.W.2d 791, 798 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Longoria v. State, 663 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1983, no pet.); Charles v. State, 626 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1981, pet. ref'd).
Appellant cites Renn v. State, 495 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Crim.App.1973), and Stein v. State, 492 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Crim.App.1973), as requiring reversal. We do not agree. These two cases involved repeated inflammatory remarks by the prosecution about each defendant. Renn ("hippie," "anti-Christ," "Swastika," and "Communist"); Stein, ("hippie"). In the instant case, the prosecutor only used the word "parasite" once, and made no other derogatory characterizations of appellant. See Hoover v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 298 S.W. 438, 441 (1927) ( ). Any harmful effect of this improper reference was cured by the trial court's immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the comment. Smith v. State, 653 S.W.2d 835, 841 ( ). The fifth ground of error is overruled.
Appellant next complains that the prosecutor's jury argument in the punishment phase of the trial was improper and requires reversal because the prosecutor invited the jury to speculate on matters not in evidence which denied appellant a fair trial. Specifically, appellant complains of the following portions of the prosecutor's argument:
The record reflects that L.V. was a victim of another sexual assault for which appellant was charged and which was pending at the time of this trial. L.V. testified for the State as a reputation witness only, and testified that appellant's reputation was bad.
The following discussion with the trial court regarding this jury argument was had outside the presence of the jury:
It is improper for a prosecutor to imply to a jury that there exists pertinent evidence which is not available to the jury. Little v. State, 567 S.W.2d 502, 505 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Appellant argues the prosecutor's statements tended to give the jury the impression that L.V. was a victim of another sexual assault committed by appellant, and that there was something more to this witness' testimony that the jury was allowed to hear.
We do not think the prosecutor's argument necessarily leads to such a conclusion. The prosecutor's statement that the jury had not been entitled to know about L.V. was somewhat ambiguous, but the prosecutor subsequently clarified his statement by explaining that reputation evidence is only appropriate during the punishment phase of the trial. The jury had no information about L.V. other than that she attended the same school as appellant and was familiar with his reputation.
Although the prosecutor's argument was improper, we do not consider that the argument was extreme or manifestly improper or violative of a mandatory statute, or to have injected new facts detrimental to appellant. In any event, any possible harm was again cured by the trial court's prompt instruction to the jury to disregard. Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851, 855 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). We pause to note again that the appellant received a rather mild punishment from the jury after it heard this argument. We do not find any error which denied appellant a fair trial. Appellant's sixth ground of error is overruled.
By his fourth ground of error, appellant challenges statements made by the prosecutor during the State's opening statement in the guilt/innocence phase which he characterizes as inserting unsworn testimony as to the ultimate issue in the case. Appellant complains of the following remarks:
TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 36.01(3) (Vernon 1981) sets out the purpose and scope of the State's opening statement. Subsection 3 provides: "The State's attorney shall state to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chew v. State
...group and also after the jury has been selected but before it has been sworn. Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29 (Ind.1986); Williams v. State, 712 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.1986).8 Since the initial burden of production is on the defendant to show the existence of purposeful discrimination, it follows t......
-
People v. Young
...476 U.S. at 93, 106 S.Ct. at 1721, 90 L.Ed.2d at 85. See also State v. Slappy (Fla.1988), 522 So.2d 18, 21-22; Williams v. State (Tex.App.1986), 712 S.W.2d 835, 841; People v. Thompson (1981), 79 A.D.2d 87, 111, 435 N.Y.S.2d 739, The defendant argues that the trial court erred in holding th......
-
People v. Hooper
...not to make inquiry." (People v. Thompson (1981), 79 A.D.2d 87, 111, 435 N.Y.S.2d 739, 755.) In Williams v. State (Tex.App.1986), 712 S.W.2d 835, the court "In Batson, the state struck all four Blacks from the panel. It is obvious from the majority's opinion that there [118 Ill.2d 249] is n......
-
Calhoun v. State
...Swain v. State, 504 So.2d 347 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). In Swain, 504 So.2d at 349, we quoted with approval Williams v. State, 712 S.W.2d 835, 840 (Tex.Dist.Ct.App.1986), where the court held, "In light of Batson, the proper time to raise such an objection was after the peremptory strikes had been......
-
Table of cases
...251, 341 P.3d 1275, 2015 Kan. LEXIS 29 (2015), §5:56 Williams v. State , 662 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983), §11:82 Williams v. State , 712 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi, 1986), §11:57 Williams v. State , 837 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992), §16:122 Williams v. State......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...in a racially discriminatory manner must be made before the jury is sworn and the venire panel is discharged. [ Williams v. State , 712 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 1986).] Trial counsel must make the objection after the parties have delivered their strike lists to the clerk and be......
-
Table of cases
...769 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993), §16:80 Williams v. State , 662 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983), §11:82 Williams v. State , 712 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi, 1986), §11:57 Williams v. State , 837 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992), §16:122 Williams v. State , 9......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...in a racially discriminatory manner must be made before the jury is sworn and the venire panel is discharged. [ Williams v. State , 712 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 1986).] Trial counsel must make the objection after the parties have delivered their strike lists to the clerk and be......