1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________ ___ ________ NO. 09

- 12

- 00342

- CV



### _________ ___ _______ IN RE COMMITMENT OF LARRY DALE LANZONE

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11

- 12

- 12933

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State of Texas filed a petition to commit appellant Larry Dale Lanzone
as a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001

- .151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2012). A jury found that Lanzone is a sexually violent
predator, and the trial court signed a final judgment and an order of civil

commitment. In his sole appellate issue, 1 Lan zone challenges the trial court’s
overruling of his object ions to allegedly improper com ments made by the State

1 Lanzone originally asserted an issue concerning the trial court’s denial of his requested jury questions, but he filed a letter brief in which he stated his desire to abandon that issue.2 during closing argument . We affirm the trial court’s judgment and order of civil

commitment.

In his sole issue , Lanzone argues t hat the trial court improperly overruled his
objection to comments made by counsel for the State during closing argument.
Lanzone complains specifically of the following portion of the State’s closing

argument , and the trial court’s ruling thereon : Why d o so many doctors, forensic experts use those tests, because they have been tested through research and literature to help an expert understand a person’s risk. They told us that Mr. Lanzone given his age, given his sexual history, given all the information about his victims and the people . . . he sexually assaulted, he is a risk to commit future acts of sexual violence. But that’s not some number, that is a standard that these experts use based on research and literature.
[Defense counsel] asked you to get over it, to get pas[t] the offenses, and I find that quite offensive.
[Defense counsel]: I’m going to object to the criticism, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. She has a right to resp ond to your arguments. Attorneys have great latitude to indulge in “flights of oratory.” Sw.
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Dickson , 236 S.W .2d 115, 119 (Tex. 1951). However,
counsel should “confine the argument strictly to the evidence and to the arguments
of opposing counsel.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 269(e). A ttorneys should not engage in3 personal critici sm of each other during jury argument. Id . T o obtain a reversal
based upon improper jury argument, Lanzone must show “ (1) an error [,] (2) that
was not invited or provoked, (3) that was preserved by the proper trial predicate,

such as an objection, a motion to instruct, or a motion for mistrial, and (4) was not
curable by an instruction, a prompt withdrawal of the statement, or a reprimand by
the judge. ” Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Reese , 584 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Tex. 1979).
Viewing the complained

- of portion of the State’s closing argument in
context, it is clear that counsel for the State was not criticizing opposing counsel
personally, but was instead criticizing counsel’s argument that encouraged the jury
to look beyond Lanzone’s sexua lly violent offenses because Lanzone has changed

. Lanzone has not shown that error occurred. See id

. ; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 269(e).
Accordingly, we overrule Lanzone’s issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment

and order of civil commitment

.
AFFIRMED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on June 20, 2013 Opinion Delivered July 11, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Ho rton , JJ.