Case ID: tex-crim_108/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

L. W. Utley v. The State.
    No. 11067.
    Delivered November 23, 1927.
    Rehearing denied January 4, 1928.
    1. —Burglary—Argument of Counsel — Not Improper.
    Where counsel for appellant in his argument called the attention of the jury to the presence of the young wife, recently married, of appellant in the courtroom, it was not improper for counsel for the state replying thereto, to say in substance that appellant could not hide behind the skirts of his wife, that men had hid behind the skirts of _ their wives_ in times of war, and avoided draft, etc. The minimum punishment _ having been inflicted, no injury appears to have resulted or prejudice against the accused aroused.
    ON REHEARING.
    2. —Same—Continued.
    On rehearing we find no reason for changing our opinion above set out as to the argument of counsel for the state. The evidence of guilt was plain, the lowest penalty awarded, and we can find no possible-ground for holding that the argument complained of prejudiced the rights of the accused.
    Appeal from the District Court of Lubbock County. Tried below before the Hon. Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for burglary, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for burglary, punishment two years in the penitentiary.

The evidence seems amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. The complaint made, based on alleged improper argument of the state’s attorney, cannot be sustained. It appears from the record that subsequent to his indictment herein but prior to his trial appellant married. His wife was in the courtroom at the time of trial. Reference to the marriage and to his wife was made by appellant’s attorney in his argument. In his closing argument the state’s attorney said, in substance, that appellant could not hide behind the skirts of his wife; that men had hid behind the skirts of their wives in times of war and evaded draft, etc. Where the evidence is plain, showing the guilt of the accused, and the lowest penalty is awarded him, this court will not be inclined to reverse for argument which does not appear to have resulted in any prejudice to the accused.

The judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant presents only the contention that we erred in what we said relative to the argument of the District Attorney. We see no necessity for multiplying words. The evidence was plain; the conclusion of guilt inevitable; the lowest penalty awarded. We see no possible ground for holding that the argument complained of prejudiced the rights^ of the accused.

The motion is overruled. Overruled.