Court Opinion

ID: 9777329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:07:43.720304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:52.676494
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority’s disposition of appellant’s ninth ground of error, which addresses jury argument that implied appellant was guilty of two extraneous murders. The argument, set out in the majority opinion, concluded:
*927“Clara was not a suspect in those two murders, but she knew something about them. Of course, you know, she had been running around with Jimmy Hightower for the last six months. But we asked all the questions—
“MR. TANDY: Judge, we’re going to object to that, that’s—
“THE COURT: I don’t want any demonstrations from the audience whatsoever. And I don’t want people traipsing in and out. Mr. Nelson, would you take care of that situation?
“MR. TANDY: We’re going to object at this time to the prosecutor implying that Mr. Jimmy Hightower was guilty of an extraneous offense, which she was talking about. And we would like to instruct the jury not to consider that for any purpose.
“MR. MALONE: Well, Your Honor, she’s just argued the evidence. The evidence shows—
“MR. TANDY: She didn’t argue any evidence.
“MR. MALONE — that she’s been running around; that she and Jimmy High-tower have known each other since April or sometime.
“THE COURT: I overrule the objection.”
The objection was timely and meritorious.
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the jury argument complained of “[njeither directly [n]or indirectly indicated that appellant was in some way involved in the two extraneous murder offenses.” The combination of these two seemingly unrelated facts was clearly intended to suggest to the jury that appellant was implicated in the extraneous offenses. I respectfully dissent.
Before the Court en banc.