1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 2- 07-408- CR 2- 07-409- CR L UT HE R B E N L ONG AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 371STDI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antLu t herBen L ong a ppe al s hi s con vi ct i onsf orrob be r y a nd a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e ry . We a f f i r m. O n Sept em ber30, 2006 , app el l ant w al ke d i nt o t he A l l N ew G am e Room i n Ar l i ngt on, Texa s, hog-t i ed an em pl oye e, an d s t ol e a l l t he m one y f r om t he2 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 9 .0 3 (a )(2 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 3 ... Id. § 1 .0 7 (a )(1 7 )(A ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 c a s h b o x . O n O c t o b e r9 , h e u s e d a b la c k.3 5 7 r e v o lv e r t o t a k e $ 1 ,1 0 0 in s m a ll bi l l s f r om t he M om ’ s Tr i pl e 7 Gam e Room , al so i n Ar l i ngt on. T h e tw o c a s e sw e re c o n s o l i d a te d fo r tri a l , a n d a fte r h e a ri n g e v i d e n c e , a ju ry fo u n d a p p e l l a n t g u i l ty o f ro b b e ry a n d a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry w i th a d e a d ly w e a p o n . D u ri n g the p u n is h m e n t ph a se , th e tr i a l co u rtg ran ted ap p e l l a n t a m i st r i alan d or der ed a new puni sh m enthe ar i ng. A sec ond j ury w asca l l ed, an d aft erhe ar i ng e vi den ceon p uni sh m ent , i tass es se d t w ent y ye ar s’ co nf i nem ent f ort he r obb ery and t w ent y- seven year s f or t he aggr avat ed r obb ery. The t r i al cou rts ent enc ed app el l antac cor di ngl y a nd or de r ed t he se nt enc est o r un con cur r ent l y. I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , appel l antcl ai m s t hatt he evi den cei s l ega l l y i ns uf f i ci ent to p ro v e th a t h e u s e d a d e a d l y w e a p o n d u ri n g th e a g g ra v a te d ro b b e rya t M o m ’s Tr i pl e 7. Th e use ofa “deadl y w eapon ” i s a n essent i al el em entofaggr avat ed rob b e ry as i t w a s ch a rge d i n a p p e ll a n t’ s ind i c tm e n t. 2A f ir e a r m isa d e a d ly w eapon perse. 3Tes t i m ony us i ng a ny o ft he t er m s “gun , ” “p i st ol , ” or4 ... W ri gh t v. S tate , 5 9 1 S .W .2 d 4 5 8 , 4 5 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . [P a n e l O p .] 1 9 7 9 ).

5 ... Se eid .; L uskv. S tate , N o . 02
- 08
- 01 2- C R , 20 08 W L 49 38 10 5, at *2– 3 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h, N ov. 20, 2008 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , not d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). 3 “r evo l ve r ”i ss uf f i c i e ntt o a ut ho r i z e a j ury t o f i nd t ha ta d e a dl y w e a po n w as us ed. 4H er e, t he evi dence show ed t hatJoseph S anchez r eport ed t o pol i ce t hat a p p e l l a n t h a d u s e d a .3 5 7 h e l d d o w n b yh i ss i d e to c o n d u c t a ro b b e rya t M o m ’s Tri pl e 7. O f f i cer s sear ched app el l ant ’ s hom e, and al t hou gh t hey di d not r ecover a w ea pon, t heyf ound . 38 l ong r evo l veram m uni t i on a nd a hol st er , bot h of w hi ch w ou l d f i ta . 357 r e vo l ve r . Ar l i ng t on Po l i c e Det e c t i veKy l e Di s hko t es t i f i ed t hata . 357 i s a f i r ea r m , a han dgun, a r evo l ver , an d a de adl y w ea pon. Joseph tes t i f i e d th a t a p pel l antused a “gun” t o r ob hi m , and atvar i ous t i m es dur i ng t r i al he r ef er r ed t o t he gun as a “r evol ver , ” “bl ack r evol ver , ” “l ar ge bl ack han dgun, ” and a “l ar ge bl ac k pi st ol . ” W e h ol d t hi s evi den cei s l ega l l y s uf f i ci ent t o show t hatappel l antused a deadl y w eapon an d o v er r ul e appel l ant ’ s f i r st p o i n t. 5 I n hi s se con d a nd t hi r d poi nt s, ap pel l antco m pl ai nsoff ouroft he pr osecut or ’ s r em ar ks dur i ng cl osi ng ar gum ent and of one com m entby t he t r i al c o u rt .6 ... Se eT h o mp so nv. S tate , 89 S. W . 3d 843, 850 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 2 , p e t. re f’d ).

7 ... Felder v. S tate , 8 4 8 S .W .2 d 8 5 , 9 4

– 9 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ), c ert. denied, 5 1 0 U .S . 8 2 9 (1 9 9 3 ); A le j an dro v. S tate , 493 S . W . 2d 230, 231 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 3 ).

8 ... Sa n do va l

v. S tate , 52 S. W . 3d 85 1, 85 7 ( Tex . A p p . — H oust on [ 1st D i s t.] 2 0 0 1 , p e t. re f’d ).

9 ... Se eEverett v. S tate , 7 0 7 S .W .2 d 6 3 8 , 6 4 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). 10 ... Se eSh a nn o nv. S tate , 942 S . W . 2d 591, 597 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 6 ); Ba rnes v. S tate , 70 S . W . 3d 294, 308 ( Te x. App . — For tW ort h 2002, p e t. re f’d ). 4 Th e l aw pr ovi des f or , and pr esum es, a f ai rt r i al f r ee f r om i m pr oper ar gum entby t he S t at e. 6T o b e p e r m is s ib le , t h e S t a t e ’s ju rya r g u m e n tm u s tf a ll w i t hi n one of t he f ol l ow i ng f ourg ener al ar eas: ( 1) sum m at i on of t he evi dence; ( 2) r ea so nab l e d edu ct i on fr om t he evi den ce ; ( 3) an sw ert o a r gum entof o p p o sing c o u n se l ; o r (4 ) p l e a fo r la w e n fo rc e m e n t. 7T o d e te rm i n e w h e th e r a p a rt y’ s ar gum entpr oper l y f al l s w i t hi n one of t hese cat egor i es, t he appel l ate courtshoul d consi dert he ar gum enti n l i ght oft he r ecor d as a w hol e. 8 I tha s l ong bee n est abl i sh ed t hatt he St at e c ann otus e c l os i ng a r gum ent t o get bef or e t he j ury evi den ce t hat i s out si de t he r ec or d a nd pr ej udi ci alt o t he ac cus ed. 9H ow e v e r , t he S t at e i s al l ow ed w i de l at i t ude i n dr aw i ng i nf er ences f r om t he evi den ce so l ong as t he i nf er enc esar e r ea so nab l e, f ai r , l egi t i m at e, an d of f er ed i n goo d f ai t h. 1011 ... Ha wki n s v. S tate , 1 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 2 , 7 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 12 ... Id. 13 ... Wesb roo kv. S tate , 2 9 S .W .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), cert. denied, 5 3 2 U .S . 9 4 4(2 0 0 1 ).

14 ... D i nki n s v. S ta te , 8 9 4S .W .2 d 3 3 0 , 3 5 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), c ert. denied, 5 1 6 U .S . 8 3 2 (1 9 9 5 ); F a ul kn er v. S tate , 940 S . W . 2d 308, 312 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 7 , p e t. re f’d ).

15 ... Wesbrook , 29 S . W . 3d a t116. 16 ... Te x. R. App . P. 44. 2. 5 W h e n a tri a l c o u rt s u s ta i n sa n o bj e c ti o n a n d in s tru c tst h e ju ryto d i s re g a rd t h e s t a t e ’s a r g u m e n tb u td e n ie sa d e f e n d a n t ’s m o t io n f o rm is t r ia l, t h e is s u e is w h e t h e rt h e t r ia l c o u rta b u s e d it sd is c r e t io n in d e n y in g t h e m is t r ia l. 11 I t s r es ol ut i on de pen dson w het hert he cou rt ’ s i ns t r uct i on t o di sr ega r d c ur ed any p rej u d i c i a l effe c t. 12A n i n s tru c ti o n to d i s re g a rd i sp re s u m e d to c u reth e h a rm . 13 I f t he i ns t r uct i on cur ed any har m ca us ed by t he i m pr ope rar gum ent , a r evi ew i ng cou rts houl d f i nd t hatt he t r i al cou rtdi d noter r ; al m os tan y i m pr ope rar gum ent m ay be cur ed by an i ns t r uct i on t o di sr ega r d. 14Itisp r e s u m e d t h a tt h e ju ryw ill fo l l o w a c o u rt ’s i n stru c ti o n to d i sre g a rd a co m m e n t. 15O nl y i ft he r evi ew i ng c o u rtd e term i n e s th a t t h e i n stru c ti o n w a s i n e ff e c tiv e d o e s th eco u rtg o o n to d e t e r m in e w h e t h e rt h e e r r o rw a sh a r m f u l. 1617 ... Ma rti n ez v. S tate , 1 7 S .W .3 d 6 7 7 , 6 9 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 18 ... SeeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 4 .2 (b ). 19 ... Id. 20 ... Jo hn so nv. S tate , 4 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). 21 ... Jo hn so nv. S tate , 9 6 7 S .W .2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). 22 ... Web b v. S tate , 3 6 S .W .3 d 1 6 4 , 1 8 2 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ).

23 ... Id. 24 ... Id. 6 E r r o rre s u lt in g f r o m im p r o p e rju rya r g u m e n tisn o n c o n s t it u t io n a l in nat ur e. 17Ther ef or e, i ft he St at e’ s ar gum entw asi m pr ope ran d notcu r ed by t he i nst r uct i on t o di sr egar d, t hi s court m ust cond uct t he har m anal ysi s pr escr i bed by R ul e 44 . 2( b) oft he T exas Ru l es ofA ppel l at e Pr ocedu r e. 18U ndert hi s r ul e, a n e rro r “ th a t d o e sn o t a ffe c t s u b s ta n ti a l ri g h tsm u s t b e d i s re g a rd e d .” 19 Subst ant i alr i ght s ar e a f f ec t ed w hen t he er r orha d a s ubs t ant i alan d i nj ur i ous i n fl u e n c e o n the j u ry’s v e rdict. 20A n er r ort hathas no i nf l uen ce , oronl y a s l i ght i nf l uence, on t he ver di ct s hou l d be deem ed har m l ess. 21 How eve r , i ft he re v i e w i n g c o u rt i su n s u re w h e t h e rth e e rro r a ffe c te d th e o u tc o m e , th e c o u rt s h o u ld t r e a tt h e e r r o ra sh a r m f u l. 22N ei t herpart y has a b ur den of pr oof und er R u l e 4 4 .2 (b ). 23 R at her , t he appel l at e court w i l l exam i ne t he r ecor d f orpur poses o fd e t e r mi n i n g h a r m. 2425 ... 9 8 3 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ), cert. denied, 526

U .S . 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ).

26 ... Id. 27 ... See Si

mp s o n v. S tate , 119 S . W . 3d 262, 272 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 3 ); Ladd v. State, 3 S .W .3 d 5 4 7 , 5 6 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U .S . 1 0 7 0 (2 0 0 0 ).

28 ... Mo n tg o m ery v. S tate , 810 S. W . 2d 372, 391 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1990 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ).

29 ... Ba u der v. S tate , 9 2 1 S .W .2 d 6 9 6 , 6 9 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), o ver rule d o no th er

gro un dsb yE

xp a rteL e wis , 21 9 S . W . 3 d 335 , 371 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Ba rne tt v. S tate , 1 6 1 S .W .3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 4(T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ), af f 'd ,1 8 9 S .W .3 d 2 7 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ).

7 T o d e te rm i n e th e i s s u e o f h a r m in t h e c o n te x t o f n o n c o n s ti tu ti o n a l j u ry a r g u m e n te r r o r , a re v ie w in g c o u rts h o u ld a p p lyt h e t h r e e f a c t o r sre c o g n iz e d in Mo sleyv. S tate : 25( 1 ) se v e ri ty o f t h e m i sc o n d u c t; ( 2 ) m e a su res a d o p ted to c u re th e m i sc o n d u c t; an d ( 3 ) c e rt a i n ty o f co n v i c ti o n ab se n t t h e m i sc o n d u c t. 26 W e r evi ew a t r i alco urt ’ s den i alofa m ot i on f orm i st r i alf oran ab us e o f di sc r et i on. 27At r i al courtdoes not abuse i t s di scr et i on i f i t s deci si on i s atl east w i th i n the zo n e o f r e a so n a b l e d i sa g ree m e n t. 28A m i st r i ali s an ext r em e r em edy f orpr ej udi ci al event s occur r i ng dur i ng t he t r i al pr ocess and shoul d be gr ant ed onl y w hen r es i dua l pr ej udi ce r em ai ns aft er obj ec t i ons ar e su st ai ned an d c ur at i ve i ns t r uct i onsgi ven . 2930 ... See Bustam ante v. State 48 S. W . 3d 761, 765 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp.

2 0 0 1 ).

31 ... Id. 32 ... Wea d

v. S tate , 1 2 9 S .W .3 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 8 A ppe l l antf i r stco m pl ai nsoft he f ol l ow i ng r em ar k f r om t he ope ni ng po rt i on o f t h e S ta te ’s fi n a l arg u m e n t as an i n d i rec t co m m e n t on ap p e l l a n t’ s fa i l u re to t es t i f y: A tt he t i m e i t appear s w hen he w as i nt ervi ew ed on t hi s part i cul ar di sk tha tm ayb e h e d i dn’ tkn ow t hatev eryt hi ng w asca ughton vi de ot a pe . I d on ’ tk no w . Bu tc l e a r l y hes a i d – –. T h e tri a l c o u rt s u s ta i n e d a p p e l l a n t’so bj e c ti o n t o t h i sre m a rk , in s tru c te d th e j u ry t o d is r e g a r d it , a n d d e n ie d a p p e lla n t ’s m o t io n f o rm is t r ia l. T o d e t e r m in e ifa p r o s e c u t o r ’s c o m m e n tc o n s t it u t e d a n im p e r m i s s ib le r ef er enc e t o a n a cc us ed’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y, t hi s cou rtm us tde ci de w het hert he l a n g u a g e u s e d w a sm a n i fe s tl yin te n d e d o r w a so f s u c h a c h a ra c te r th a t th e j u ry nat ur al l y a nd ne ce ss ar i l y w oul d ha ve con si der ed i tt o bea com m enton t he def end ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. 30 The of f end i ng l ang uag e m us tbevi ew ed f r om t he j ury’ s st and poi nt , an d t he i m pl i ca t i on t hatt he com m entr ef er r ed t o t he a c c u s e d ’s fa i l u re to te s ti fy m u s t b e c l e a r. 31 A m er e i ndi r ec tori m pl i ed al l us i on to the d e fen d a n t’ s fa i l u re to tes ti fy d o e s n o t v io la te t h e ac c u se d ’s ri g h t t o rem a i n si l e n t. 3233 ... Se eV a rugh esev. S tate , 8 9 2 S .W .2 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W ort h 1 99 4, pet . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng r ef er ence t o w hatdef endan tsai d i n a r ecor ded s ta te m e n t i sn o t a c o m m e n to n h i sfa i l u reto te s ti fy ); Be th el v. S tate , 842 S . W . 2d 80 4, 80 8 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] 19 92 , no pet . ) ( hol di ng t hat r ef er enc e t o s t at em entm adeby t he def end antt o pol i cei s nota com m enton h i sfa i l u re to te s ti fy ).

34 ... See Felder, 8 4 8 S .W .2 d a t 9 4

– 9 5 ; A le j an dro , 493 S. W . 2d a t231. 9 T h e p ro s e c u to r’sa rg u m e n t i n th i sc a s e w a sn o t a c o m m e n t o n a p p e l l a n t’s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. The st at em entcl ea r l y a l l ude s t o t he r ec or ded s t at em ent appel l antgave w hen he w as i nt ervi ew ed att he pol i ce st at i on. Thu s, w hen exam i ned i n contextoft he r ecor d, t he pr osecut or ’ s ar gum entw as i n r ef er ence t o s t a t e m e n t sm a d e b ya p p e lla n tt h a th a d b e e n p r e v io u s lyin t r o d u c e d in e v i d e n c e . A c c o rding l y , th e arg u m e n t w a s n o t erron e o u s a n d d i d n o t co n sti tu te a c om m enton a ppe l l ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. 33M or eov er , be cause t he pr os ec ut or ’ s ar gum entw asper m i ss i bl e, t he t r i alco urtco ul d notha ve er r ed by r e f u s in g t o g r a n ta p p e lla n t ’s re q u e s tf o rm is t r ia l. 34 T h e s e c o n d c h a l l e n g e d c o m m e n t th a t w a sm a d e d u ri n g th e S ta te ’s cl os i ng a r gum enti s t he f ol l ow i ng: In th i sd a ya n d a g e m a n yo f u s a r e a f r a id to b e o u t a t n i g h t. W e ar e af r ai d t hatsom et hi ng w i l l happen t o ourl oved ones w hen t hey l eave oursi ght. W hy? Becau se t her e ar e peopl e l i ke Lut herBen L o n g tha t are o u t t h e re ru n n i n g aro u n d . I s th a t r i g h t? A p p e l l a n t o bj e c te d to th e c o m m e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t i t i s“ i m p ro p e r j u ry a rgu m e n t t o st a rttal k i n g ab o u t oth e r pe o p l e run n i n g aro u n d l i k e ” a p p e l l a n t.35 ... Se eBo rj a nv. S tate , 7 8 7 S .W .2 d 5 3 , 5 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). 36 ... Se e, e .g., S to n e v. S tate , 5 74 S . W . 2d 8 5, 9 0 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. [ Panel O p .] 1 9 7 8 ). 10 The t r i alco urts us t ai ned t he obj ec t i on, i ns t r uct ed t he j ur y t o di sr ega r d, an d d e n ie d a p p e lla n t ’s m o t io n f o rm is t r ia l. O n a p p e a l, a p p e lla n tp r o v id e sn o a n a ly s is o r le g a l a r g u m e n tt o s u p p o rth is assert i on t hatt hi s com m entw as i m pr oper . The S t at e cont ends t hatt he t r i al c o u rtn e e d n o t ha v e su sta i n e d ap p e l l a n t’ s o bje c ti o n o r i n stru c ted the j u ry to d i s re g a rd b e c a u s e th e c o m m e n tw a s a p ro p e r p l e a fo r l a w e n fo rc e m e n t. W e agr ee. D ur i ng a r gum entatei t hert he gui l t / i nn oc en ceorpuni sh m entpha se s of t r i al , t he St at e m ay pr es ent a pl ea f or l aw enf or ce m ent . Such pl ea s t ak e m any f or m s, i ncl udi ng a r gui ng t he r el at i ons hi p be t w ee n t he j ury' s ver di ctan d t he det er r ence ofcr i m e i n gener al ; argui ng t hatj ur i es shou l d det erspeci f i c cr i m es by t hei rve r di ct s; an d a r gui ng t he i m pac toft he j ury’ s ver di ct o n t he com m uni t y. 35 H er e, t he pr osecut or ’ s ar gu m e n ti s a pl ea f orl aw enf or cem entt hat pr ope r l y r ef er s t o how cr i m esoft hi s t ypegener al l y a f f ec tt he com m uni t y. The courtofcr i m i nal appeal s has deem ed si m i l arar gum ent s per m i ssi bl e. 36 A c c o r d in g ly , b e c a u s e t h e a r g u m e n tw a sa p le a f o rla w e n f o r c e m e n t , w e h o ld37 ... Mc Ka yv. S tate , 7 0 7 S .W .2 d 2 3 , 3 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ), c ert.

denied, 4 7 9 U .S . 8 7 1 (1 9 8 6 ).

38 ... Gri ffi nv. S tate , 5 5 4S .W .2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ). 39 ... Kenn e dyv. S tate , 1 9 3 S .W .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 7 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 6 , p e t. re f’d ). 11 t hatt he t r i al courtneed not have sust ai ned appel l ant ’ s obj ect i on and , t her ef or e, d id n o ta b u s e it sd is c r e t io n b yd e n y in g a p p e lla n t ’s m o t io n f o rm is t r ia l. A ppe l l antne xtcl ai m s t ha tthe t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by ove r r ul i ng hi s obj ec t i on t o t he pr os ec ut or ’ s ca l l i ng h i m a “c ow ar d”an d a

“ th u g .” I ti s w el l s ett l ed t hata prosec ut orm ay ar guehi s opi ni onsco nce r ni ng i ss u e s i n t h e c a s e , s o l o n g a s t h e o p i n i o n s a r e b a s e d o n t h e e v i d e nce i n t he r ec or d a nd do notco ns t i t ut e u ns w or n t es t i m ony. 37D ur i ng ar gum ent , counsel m ay dr aw f r om t he f ac t s i n evi den ceal l i nf er enc est hatar e r ea so nab l e, f ai r , an d le g it im a t e , a n d h e w ill b e a f f o r d e d g r e a tla t i t u d e w it h o u tlim it a t io n in t h is r e s p e c ts o lo n g a sh isa r g u m e n ti s s u p p o rt e d b yt h e e v id e n c e a n d o f f e r e d in good f ai t h. 38 I n Kenn e dyv. S tate , t hi s cou rthe l d t hatan ar gum entcal l i ng t he app el l ant

“ t h e b ig g e s tc o w a r d t h a tw a l k s t h e f a c e o ft h e e a rt h ,” w a sa re a s o n a b le dedu ct i on f r om the evi dence. 39I n t hatca se , w e n ot ed t hatot herco urt s of appeal s have uphel d si m i l arar gum ent s i n l i ght oft he f act s ofeach case,40 ... Id. ( ci t i ng Belto nv. S tate , 90 0 S . W . 2d 88 6, 89 8 ( Tex . A pp. — El Paso

1 9 9 5 , p e t. re f’d ); V

iti el l o v. S tate , 848 S. W . 2d 885, 888 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 3 , p e t. re f’d ); L e desm av. S tate , 828 S . W . 2d 560, 563 ( Tex. A p p .— E l P a s o 1 9 9 2 , n o p e t.); A dam s v. S tate , 813 S. W . 2d 698 , 700– 01 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 1 , p e t. re f’d ); Ga rzav. S tate , 783 S . W . 2d 796, 8 0 0 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 0 , n o p e t.); V a rva ro v. S tate , 772 S. W . 2d 1 4 0 , 1 4 4 (T e x . A p p .— T y l e r 1 9 8 8 , p e t. re f’d ); Ca tesv. S tate , 752 S. W . 2d 175, 1 7 7 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s1 9 8 8 , n o p e t.)).

41 ... Kennedy , 193 S. W . 3d at657 ( hol di ng pr os ec ut or ’ s com m entca l l i ng t he appel l ant“t he bi ggestcow ar d t hatw al ks t he f ace oft he ea rt h , ” a r ea so nabl e d ed uc t i on f r om t he ev i de nc e w he r e ev i de nc e d em ons t r at ed app el l ant s ta b b e d a m a n a n d k i l l e d h i m w i th o u t p ro v o c a ti o n ). 12 i ncl udi ng ar gum ent s cal l i ng a de fen d a n t an “ani m al , ” a “ f ool , ” “vi ci ous, ” a “l i ar , ” a “ dog , ” a “ col d- bl ood ed ki l l er , ” a “j er k, ” a “t r oub l em aker , ” and a “onem an cr i m e w ave , ” and co nt end i ng t hata def end ant“ hasno co ns ci enc e, no h e a rt , n o re c o g n it io n o frig h to rw r o n g [ a n d i s ] p e r c h e d o n t h e rim o fh e ll, l o o k i n g d e e p i n to i t.” 40 H e re , th e p ro s e c u to r’s a rg u m e n t fe l l w i th i n th e b o u n d s o f p ro p e rj u ry ar gum entw hen he cal l ed appel l anta “t h ug” and a “cow ar d” because t hese w er e r easonabl e deducti ons f r om t he evi dence. 41 The ev i d e nce i n t hi s case dem onst r at es t hatappel l anten t er ed t w o busi ness est abl i shm ent s and r obb ed unar m ed em pl oyees ofthe bu si nesses’ cash. Th e evi dence al so show ed t hat a p p e l l a n t u s e d a g u n to c o m m i t th e s e c o n d ro b b e ry . “T h u g ” a n d “ c o w a rd ”a re aptdescr i pt i ons ofsom eone w ho e n ter s a busi ness and r obs unar m ed em pl oye esatgun poi nt . Ther ef or e, as i n Kennedy , t he pr os ec ut or ’ s com m ent42 ... Se eid . 13

const i t ut es a r easonabl e deducti on f r om t he evi dence. 42A ccor di ngl y, t he t r i al c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b yo v e rru l i n g a p p e l l a n t’so bj e c ti o n , a n d w e o v e rru l e a p p e l l a n t’s c h a l l e n g e to th i s a rgu m e n t. A ppel l ant ’ s f ourt h chal l enge i s t o t he pr osecut or ’ s ar gum entt hathe “w as fo u n d w i th fi v e d o l l a r b i l l s . It’s n o t c o i n c i d e n c e . It’s a c ri m e .”T h e tri a l c o u rt ove r r ul ed app el l ant ’ s obj ec t i on t hatha vi ng f i ve dol l arbi l l s i s nota cr i m e a nd t hatt he ar gum entw asout si de t he r ec or d. Th e ar gum entappel l antcom pl ai ns ofi s both a sum m at i on of t he evi dence a n d a re a s o n a b le d e d u c t io n f r o m t h e e v id e n c e . D u r in g t r ia l, D e t e c t iv e K y le Di s hk o t e s t i f i e d t ha th e s e a r c he d a pp e l l a nt ’ s ho m e o n O c t ob e r10, 2006 . Du r i n g t h a ts e a r c h , l a w e n f o r c e me n to f f i c e r sd i s c o v e r e d $3 7 3 o n a p p e l l a n t . Of t he cash found on appel l ant , $3 70 ofi tw as com pr i sed off i ve- dol l arbi l l s. Just a day bef or e D et ect i ve D i shko cond uct ed t he sear ch ofappel l ant ’ s hom e, J o s e p h S a n c h e zw a sro b b e d a t g u n p o in tw h i l e w o rk i n g a t M o m ’sT ri p l e 7 , a v i d e o -s l o t g a m e ro o m . T h e ro b b e r s to l e c a s h fro m th e g a m e ro o m i n th e fo rm off i ve- dol l arbi l l s. D ur i ng cl osi ng, t he pr osecut orsi m pl y poi nt ed out t hatw hen sear ched, ap pel l antw as f oun d w i t h $ 37 0 o ff i ve- dol l arbi l l s, j ustone day af t er a l ar ge am ount of f i ve- dol l ar bi l l s w er e st ol en f r om M om ’ s Tr i pl e 7 ga m e r oom .43 ... T e x . C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 5 (V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ). 44 ... Ba rnes v. S tate , 5 0 3 S .W .2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 4 ). 14 Thi s i s a p r opersum m at i on oft he evi den cead duc ed att r i al . The pr os ec ut or t hen po i nt ed out t hatt hi s f actw as nota coi nci d e n c e, butw as evi dence t hat a p p e l l a n t h a d ro b b e d th e M o m ’sT ri p l e 7 g a m e ro o m . T h e p ro s e c u t o r’s d e d u c t io n w a sre a s o n a b lyb a s e d o n t h e e v id e n c e p r e s e n t e d a tt r ia l. A cc or di ngl y, t he t r i alco urtdi d noter rby ove r r ul i ng a ppe l l ant ’ s obj ec t i on t o t he a rgu m e n t, an d w e o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s c h a l l e n g e to th e arg u m e n t. Fi nal l y, ap pel l antco nt end s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by den yi ng hi s m ot i on f o rm is t r ia l b a s e d u p o n h iso bje c t io n t o t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s c o m m e n t , “ r e a s o n a b le i n fe re n c e fro m th e e v i d e n c e ,“w h e n th e tri a l c o u rt o v e rru l e d a p p e l l a n t’s obj ec t i on t o t he pr os ec ut or ’ s ar gum ent t hat app el l antdi sp os ed oft he w ea pon. Tex as C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedu r e A rt i cl e 38 . 05 pr ovi des: I n r ul i ng up on t he adm i ss i bi l i t y ofev i den ce , t he j udges hal l not d is c u s so rc o m m e n tu p o n t h e w e ig h to ft h e s a m e o rit sb e a r in g in t he case, butshal l si m pl y deci de w het herornoti ti s adm i ssi bl e; n o r s h a l l h e , a t a n ys ta g e o f th e p ro c e e d i n g p re v i o u sto th e re tu rn o ft h e v e r d ic t , m a k e a n yre m a r kc a lc u la t e d t o c o n v e y t o t h e ju ryh is opi ni on of t he case. 43 T h e c o u rto fc r im in a l a p p e a lsh a sh e ld t h a titisim p r o p e rf o ra t r ia l c o u rt , in ove r r ul i ng a n a ppe l l ant ’ s obj ec t i on t o t he St at e’s j ury a r gum ent , t o c om m ent th a t th e a r g u m e n tisa “ d e d u c ti o n fro m th e e v i d e n c e ,” 44o ra “ r e a s o n a b le45 ... W a rd v. S tate , 2 4 3 S .W .2 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 6

– 9 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 5 1 ). 46 ... Sh a rp v. S tate , 7 0 7 S .W .2 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ), c ert. denied, 4 8 8 U .S . 8 7 2 (1 9 8 8 ); Mc Clo ry v. S tate , 5 10 S. W . 2d 932, 934 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 4 ); Barnes , 5 0 3 S .W .2 d a t 2 7 0 ; Besh ea rs v. S tate , 461 S. W . 2d 1 2 2 , 1 2 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 0 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ).

47 ... See W

aldo v. State, 7 4 6 S .W .2 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ); Ma rksv. S tate , 6 1 7 S .W .2 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ). 15 d e d u c ti o n fro m th e te s ti m o n y .” 45To c ons t i t ut e r eve r si bl e er r or , how eve r , t he tri a l c o u rt’sc o m m e n t m u s t b e re a s o n a b l yc a l c u l a te d t o p rej u d i c e th e a p p e l l a n t’s r i ghtsby i nj ur i ng hi m orby benefi tt i ng t he S t at e. 46 In th i sc a s e , w e fi n d n o th i n g i n t h e re c o rd t o s h o w th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s c o m m e n tw a sre a s o n a b lyc a lc u la t e d t o p r eju d ic e a p p e lla n t ’s rig h t so rt o b e n e f it t he St at e. M or eve r , t he t r i al cou rt pr om pt l y i ns t r uct ed t he j ury t o di sr ega r d t he re m a rk . G e n e ra l l y , th i si ss u fficie n t to c u ree rro r. 47Ther e i s no evi dence t hat th e ju ryd i d n o t f o l l o w the j u d g e ’s i n stru c ti o n to d i sre g a rd h e r co m m e n t. Becau se t her e w as no r ever si bl e er r or , t her ef or e, t he t r i al courtdi d not abuse it sd is c r e t io n in o v e r r u lin g a p p e lla n t ’s re q u e s tf o ra m is t r ia l. W e o v e r r u le appel l ant ’ s second and t hi r d poi nt s.16

H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d allo f ap p e l l a n t’ s p o i n ts, w e affi rm the j u d g m e n t. P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 14, 2009