Court Opinion

ID: 9771744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:52:19.434571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:35.946642
License: Public Domain

*342ANDELL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. I would sustain appellant’s second point of error and would reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial.
The issue is one of improper jury argument. In this case, the State, during its closing argument, stated: “and in this country we don’t allow foreigners to rape little girls.” The State has asked this Court to give its “stamp of approval” to this type of jury argument. Alejandro v. State, 493 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). In the present case, the majority has done so. I will not.
Nowhere in American jurisprudence, whether civil or criminal, does this type of rhetoric have a place. Here, the State’s closing argument was clearly designed to arouse the passions and prejudice of the jury and, as such, was improper. Campbell v. State, 610 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
I can reasonably conclude that the appellant was prejudiced by this improper jury argument. I would reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the causes for a new trial.