Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): plea for law enforcement. Richardson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 874, 881 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Sanders v. State, 787 S.W.2d 435, 441 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). The State’s comments did not go outside the record, nor was it an improper plea for law enforcement. The appellant had been convicted of violently stabbing his father six times in the chest. The appellant’s sister Cheryl testified to threats the appellant had made to her before the murder, and on several occasions he lunged toward her in anger, making her believe he would hit her. Asking the jury what the appellant might do next if he was not sent to prison for a considerable time was not outside the bounds of permissible jury argument. See Murray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). We overrule point of error four. We affirm 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant was entitled to have his plea accepted absent a sound reason for rejecting the plea (B) holding that under the circumstances of that case an argument made for the first time in a motion for rehearing was waived (C) holding that the good faith requirement of the whistleblower statute was not met where the purpose of the employee at the time of the making of reports was not to protect the public but to protect the jobs of himself and his coworkers (D) holding the states argument that the best way to protect the community was to give the defendant substantial time in prison was a proper plea for law enforcement (E) holding states argument was proper deduction from evidence
Output (English): holding that the good faith requirement of the whistleblower statute was not met where the purpose of the employee at the time of the making of reports was not to protect the public but to protect the jobs of himself and his coworkers