Court Opinion

ID: 9646630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:05:40.589523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:40.144173
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
The reversal of this conviction is predicated upon Bill of Exception No. 2, which complains of several separate remarks of the county attorney in his closing argument. To some of these objection was sustained and the argument withdrawn from the jury; to others, no objection or exception is shown, and to the remainder objection was overruled and exception noted.
*450Since the 1953 amendment of Article 667, V.A.C.C.P., the fact that the bill of exception is multifarious will not prevent its consideration by this court.
The writer does not understand, however, that the several claims of error reflected in a multifarious bill may be considered as “an overall picture,” in determining whether or not reversible error is reflected.
The rule that where a portion of the remarks in argument complained of are proper, the bill of exception is insufficient has been adhered to to the present time by this court. See Robinson v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. R. 6, 239 S.W. 2d 193; Wilson v. State, No. 27933, decided January 25, 1956. Rehearing denied April 18, 1956 (289 S.W. 2d 597).
The majority opinion does not attempt to say that any of the several remarks complained of in the bill constitutes reversible error, but reaches the conclusion that the several remarks, considered as “an overall picture,” show reversible error.
To what extent the remarks to which no objection is shown to have been addressed contribute to the “overall picture” is not disclosed in the majority opinion. Nor does the opinion reveal to what extent the remarks which were withdrawn from the jury’s consideration contributed to the conclusion of the majority that the county attorney was attesting the reputation and veracity of the state’s witnesses.
Surely my brethren do not intend to hold that a prosecuting attorney is precluded from getting before the jury his belief that the witnesses for the state have testified truthfully and the defense testimony to the contrary is not true!
Neither of the several remarks complained of constitutes reversible error, nor do all.
The writer adheres to the truism “nothing multiplied equals nothing.”
I respectfully enter my dissent.