Court Opinion

ID: 9678961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:37:23.653536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.121421
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I cannot agree that the prosecutor’s comment about “the problem we have in San Antonio with heroin” was a legitimate plea for law enforcement. The argument was clearly not based on the evidence, and “such evidence would not have been admissible had it been offered.” Lopez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). See also White v. State, 492 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Cr. App.1973). Like the arguments in Lopez and White, this argument was improper.
However, the only objection to this argument was a general one and thus nothing is presented for review. See, e. g., Hunter v. State, 530 S.W.2d 573, 575-576 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975).
The comment that “being an informer is a very hazardous profession” was also outside the record, but in this instance counsel properly objected on this ground, thus preserving the error for review. Since the argument was outside the record and improper, the trial court should have sustained the objection; however, I conclude that, in light of the entire record, the appellant was not unduly prejudiced by the remark. See Barrientez v. State, 487 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Black v. State, 491 S.W.2d 428, 431-432 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
I therefore agree that reversible error is not presented.
ODOM, J., joins in this concurrence.