Court Opinion

ID: 9765122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:51:42.369659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:05.521322
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
The appellant was indicted for robbery by assault with a prior burglary conviction alleged for enhancement. See Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. It appears from a written order in the record that the court sustained the appellant’s motion to quash the indictment with regard to the enhancement portion due to faulty allegations.1
The appellant’s defense was alibi. At the guilt stage of the trial and during the cross-examination of appellant’s stepfather, one of the alibi witnesses, the following was elicited from the witness:
“Q Where did you meet him (appellant) ?
“A He was in prison.
“Q What?
“A He was in prison.
“MR. CAPERTON: Your Honor, he knows about this and he’s doing this for the purpose of prejudicing the members of the jury. I think it’s inadmissible for any purpose and not proper cross examination and should be stricken from the record.
“THE COURT: Overrule your objection to it.
“Q (By prosecutor) You met him in Angola ? 2
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q And you know what he was in prison for?
“A Not offhand, no, sir. I never had heard what all charged were against him or anything. I never asked.”
Subsequently, on cross-examination of appellant’s mother, another alibi witness, she related she had visited the appellant in Angola.
Then during jury argument at the guilt stage of the trial where the only issue was the guilt or innocence of the appellant, State’s counsel argued:
“If there’s anything I can say about this case, it’s that he should be found guilty just as quickly as he went in there and robbed those people, in about five minutes. And then we’ll determine what the proper punishment in this case is, and I can’t think of—
“MR. CAPERTON: Your Honor, I'm going to object to that because he knows that that’s not proper.
*642“THE COURT: What’s that?
“MR. CAPERTON: About what the proper punishment in this case is. It’s an automatic punishment.
“THE DEFENDANT: It’s an automatic life sentence is what it is.
“MR. ROLFE: If it's an automatic life sentence it’s because he’s deserved it by his past convictions and past criminal conduct, and he’s over there hollering not guilty; it’s an automatic life sentence and he’s deserved it, and I tell you what, a life sentence is too light for this man, but we’ll determine that in the next phase of the hearing.
“It’s an automatic life sentence because he’s been in the Texas Department of Corrections here, he’s been in the penitentiary—
“MR. CAPERTON: Now, Your Honor, I will object. There certainly is no evidence of that.
“THE COURT: Overrule your objection, Mr. Caperton. I think you injected it into the trial.
“MR. ROLFE: I’m not going to take up any more of your time right now to determine whether or not this man is guilty. He’s just as guilty as he sets (sic) there, and when he said something about Linda Foren and those people being down there, back there with the prosecutors who knew he was guilty, well, he didn’t tell half the truth.
“I know he’s guilty and I know a heck of a lot more about him. We’re asking you right now to find him guilty of this robbery.”
The majority concludes that the complained of argument was invited by appellant’s personal statement and his counsel’s reference to “automatic punishment.” I cannot conclude the argument was invited thereby. The issue of punishment was not before the jury at the time,3 and when the prosecutor sought to pursue this issue, he was met with an objection and the remarks followed. The prosecutor nevertheless then seized upon the remarks to continue to argue the then irrelevant issue of punishment urging that he deserved an automatic life sentence because “his past convictions and past criminal conduct, because he’s been in the Texas Department of Corrections, he’s been in the penitentiary.” While there was evidence, properly or improperly elicited, that appellant had been in prison in Angola, Louisiana, the balance of such argument was outside the record and not supported by the evidence. This was clearly not invited by a reference to automatic punishment. It was clearly improper and highly prejudicial, and it is to be noted that despite appellant’s earlier objection the prosecutor concluded his argument with “I know he’s guilty and I know a heck of a lot more about him.” It is obvious that the prosecutor, by hook or crook, was injecting his unsworn personal knowledge into jury argument.
I would reverse without more.
ODOM, J., joins in this dissent.

. The judgment indicates such action was taken upon written motion of the District Attorney. It does not appear that such action was taken until after the guilt stage of the trial.

. Apparent reference to Angola, Louisiana.

. Even if the enhancement portion had remained in the case (see footnote #1), the jury would not have assessed punishment if they had found he was one and the same person so previously convicted since the punishment is automatically assessed by law. See Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.