Court Opinion

ID: 9771887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:58:05.065482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:33.239982
License: Public Domain

BUTTS, Justice,
dissenting.
This case is reversed because at the punishment phase of trial the prosecutor, in answering defense argument that the State failed to present reputation testimony, argued:
... The defense attorney has told you that we can bring in people to say he had a bad reputation if we want to. I am sure I could have brought in the entire San Antonio Police Department to tell you that Gus Pimentel has a bad reputation.
The trial court promptly sustained an objection to the argument and instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel do not constitute evidence. If the prosecutor had stated it was true that he could have *779brought in reputation witnesses but decided not to do so, or believed they were not needed, this would have been permissible as answer to invited argument. Saying he could have brought in “the entire San Antonio Police Department” was going too far, however.
Whether this error was harmful error which the instruction did not cure is the question. I would find this was error which the trial court’s instruction did cure. While an answer was invited, the State’s answer went beyond appropriate limits. However, the cautionary instruction by the court obviated the necessity for reversal in this case. There were no new facts injected, and the language was not so inflammatory that its harmful nature could not be remedied by the instruction. I would hold the trial court correctly refused to grant a mistrial.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.