Court Opinion

ID: 9681011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:42:26.000311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.832875
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority that this case should be affirmed. However, I disagree with the majority’s statement that the prosecutor’s argument to the jury was not a comment on the appellant’s failure to testify.
The record reflects that only two witnesses were present when the offense occurred, the victim and the appellant. The victim testified; appellant did not. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the statement, “[H]as there been any other witness on the witness stand to say other than this (the appellant) is the man that robbed me ... ?” was necessarily a reference to appellant’s failure to testify. See Nickens v. State, 604 S.W.2d 101, 104-106 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (En banc) (dissenting opinion by Judge W. C. Davis).
Nonetheless, in our case the appellant did not specifically object to the prosecutor’s comment. Consequently, nothing is preserved for review. Sloan v. State, 515 S.W.2d 913, 915-916 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).