Court Opinion

ID: 9761084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:31:18.689875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:20.028622
License: Public Domain

BURDOCK, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion and believe this case must be remanded for a new trial, but for an additional reason besides that expressed by Justice Ashworth.
No instruction by the trial court can cure the error caused by the prosecutor’s improper comment that “We are not going to convict innocent people.” Clearly, the prosecutor’s highly prejudicial and unfair statement does not fall within one of the four general categories of acceptable jury argument set forth in the majority opinion.
In making such an argument, the prosecutor seeks to mislead the jury into believing that only the State represents the truth and that the defense counsel or court could be hiding something. While endeavoring to usurp the province of the jury, the State’s attorney displays arrogance in his effort not to try the case, but rather to hold defense counsel up to shame, ridicule, and contempt.
I agree with the reasoning of the court in Bell v. State, 614 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) and Menefee v. State, 614 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). This conduct has no place in a court of law. The effect of this type of argument is that it implies that only the prosecution can speak the truth and that the defense attorney has a lesser code of ethical behavior. See Lewis v. State, 529 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975). All attorneys are officers of the court and should conduct themselves accordingly.