Court Opinion

ID: 9768907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:55:33.603688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:49.229640
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
(dissenting).
My brethren agree that this case should be affirmed.
Morrison, Presiding Judge, predicates his conclusion upon the proposition that the conduct of state’s counsel in replying to statements of appellant’s counsel was attributable to such statements, and therefore did not constitute reversible error.
Woodley, Judge, concludes that the misconduct of state’s counsel, although reversible error, is not before this court for determination.
I do not agree with the conclusion of either of my brethren. I am convinced that the question of misconduct by state’s counsel was properly before this court and that reversible error is reflected by this record.
As suggested by Woodley, Judge, the complained-of conduct “was improper and cannot be excused upon the theory that it was invited by the argument of defense counsel which it interrupted.”
This appellant ought not to go to the penitentiary for twenty years when an error was committed upon his trial, as found by two judges of this court.
I dissent.