Case Name: J. R. Clark v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1951-12-19
Citations: 156 Tex. Crim. 526
Docket Number: No. 25590
Parties: J. R. Clark v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
J. R. Clark v. State
No. 25590.
December 19, 1951.
Hon. W. C. Dowdy, Judge Presiding.
Dwight Whitwell, McKinney, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Criminal District Attorney, Charles S. Potts and Porter K. Johnston, Assistants Criminal District Attorney, Dallas, and George P. Blackburn, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is burglary of a private residence at night; the punishment, forty years.
The indictment was returned by the grand jury of Dallas County, and the case was tried on change of venue in Collin County.
In view of our disposition of the case, a discussion of the facts will not be necessary.
Bill of Exceptions No. 4 reflects that Mr. MacNieoll, Assistant District Attorney of Dallas County, in his argument to the jury said:
"Here is another thing, gentlemen. This fellow Clark over here, (Referring to Defendant) I wish to God that you knew him as Wade and I know him. You would know from the facts that this bird over here is capable of going in to a home without rousing anybody and even carry out one of those television sets, just like he did do.
"Perhaps aided by his lookout, by his woman, that he had lived with for five long years. That his own family don't even know — rather, they say they don't know that he has a baby by this woman who was with him on this night. Gentlemen, if you are going to listen to that tribe of Clarks, you will give this defendant here, who I consider, under the facts, one of the worst men in Texas, a life sentence."
Appellant had not testified nor had he put his reputation in issue.
This argument is tantamount to unsworn testimony that the prosecutor knew appellant to be an accomplished burglar, thus injecting some new and harmful fact into the case, and constitutes such a flagrant violation of all the rules as to require a reversal hereof, even though the trial court recognized that such argument was improper and so instructed the jury in writing.
Judgment reversed and the cause remanded.