Court Opinion

ID: 9640843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:16:43.41919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:52.466817
License: Public Domain

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. I do not believe the prosecutor’s comments were an improper allusion to Marable’s failure to testify, but that they were a reference to a defense actually presented by witnesses for Marable.
Comments on the accused’s failure to testify violate the privileges against self-incrimination contained in the United States and Texas Constitutions, as well as the specific prohibition of Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 38.08 (Vernon 1979). Bird v. State, 527 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). For a comment to constitute such a violation, however, the implication that the language referred to the accused’s failure to testify must be a necessary one. It is not sufficient that the language might be construed as an implied or indirect allusion. The test is whether the language was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would necessarily take it to be a comment on the accused’s failure to testify. Bird v. State, supra, and authorities there cited.
Ordinarily, the use of personal pronouns in a comment about the failure to raise a defense necessarily refers to the defen*7dant’s failure to testify. Cook v. State, 702 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Cherry v. State, 507 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). That is not true, however, if the comment is alluding to a defense actually advanced by the defendant through other witnesses, as distinguished from a failure to raise a defense. Solis v. State, 718 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 792 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).
In this case, Marable produced two defense witnesses, Jerry Davis and J.O. Borden. Davis was the principal of the school where Mrs. Marable (a co-defendant) taught. He testified about Mrs. Marable’s apparent gardening activity, her bringing various plants, vegetables, and spices to school in trays and pots similar to those found on the Marables’ farm, and that she had a greenhouse. This evidence was obviously produced to advance Marable’s defense that they used the incriminating materials in harmless gardening, rather than in growing marihuana. Witness Borden testified that he owned 700 acres which adjoined the property leased by the Mara-bles. He testified that he was a farmer and cattle raiser, as was James Marable, and that he had discovered marihuana growing on his own property that had completely escaped his notice in all of his farming operations. He further testified that he had been on the Marable property, that it was a “grown up” area, and that he did not ever see any marihuana plants on that property. It is obvious that this testimony was designed to advance Marable’s defense that he was conducting usual farming and gardening activities on his place and it was not unusual for him to be unaware that marihuana was growing there.
In his argument the prosecutor was questioning the defense that had actually been advanced by the Marables’ witnesses. Therefore, his use of the pronoun “we” did not refer to Marable’s failure to testify. Rather, he was paraphrasing and questioning the defensive evidence Marable had actually produced through other witnesses. Solis v. State, supra.
For the reasons stated, I would affirm the judgment.