Court Opinion

ID: 9683672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:34:55.255384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:49.498175
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant’s able motion for rehearing directs our attention to Bills of Exception #4 and #5.
Bill of Exception #4 complains of the trial court’s failure to charge on the provisions of Art. 1223, P.C. In our original opinion we stated that the evidence did not raise the issue. There was a showing that the deceased had a gun in his hand but no showing that he was using the same as a firearm to make an assault upon appellant at the time appellant fired the fatal shot. A showing of such use at such time is essential in order to raise the issue. The fact that deceased was shot in the back negatives the probability of such use.
Bill of Exception #5 complains of the argument of the county attorney as follows:
“I say to you that in my opinion if from the evidence coming from that stand you don’t see fit to put Marshall Threadgill in the penitentiary for a long time or give him the death penalty, you might as well fire the judge on the bench, fire the sheriff, get rid of your county attorney and burn up your law books about murder.”
*163We in nowise commend either the logic or the propriety of such argument, but with the facts of this case in mind, we review the decisions of this court concerning similar argument.
In Coats v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 314, 265 S.W. 891, the district attorney said:
“Gentlemen, if you should fail to convict this defendant, the Statute of Liberty would hang her head in shame; you had as well tear down the courthouse and plant the ground upon which it stands in a corn patch so they could use it, and manufacture liquor and serve it to the public; the sheriff of this county had as well surrender his commission, because his acts will be for naught.”
And the court said:
“Though this flight of imagination may not with propriety be cited as a model for eloquence nor an example of logic, it cannot be assumed that the verdict of the jury was responsive to the extravagant statement of counsel rather than to the facts adduced upon the trial. In the reviewing court, the verdict having the sanction of the trial court and the evidence heard are important elements in estimating the effect of remarks of counsel which, though improper, are not obviously harmful.”
In Williams v. State, 122 Tex. Cr. R. 269, 54 S.W. 2d 121, the district attorney said:
“If you go out and turn this defendant loose, then you might as well tear the law books up, burn court house down, destroy jails, and let everybody go free and do as they please.”
And the court held that no reversible error was shown, quoting the Coats case above.
In Bushiey v. State, 128 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 679 S.W. 2d 124, the district attorney said:
“If you turn the defendant loose you might just as well burn the courthouse, tear up the law books and fire District Judge Reuben Hall.”
The objection was overruled by the trial court, and this court quoting the Coats case, declined to reverse because of said argument.
*164In Cross v. State, 129 Tex. Cr. Rep. 526, 89 S.W. 2d 217, the district attorney said:
“If you acquit this defendant we might as well burn the court house and deed the land back to the Indians, because we won’t need it any more.”
The court, in affirming the case, re-affirmed the rule announced in the Coats case. A search of Texas Digest, Criminal Law 723 (3), fails to reveal that the Coats case has been overruled.
In the case at bar it will be noted that counsel at least predicated his extravagant argument upon Ms opinion from the evidence in the case.
We decline to accept appellant’s invitation that we either approve the argument complained of or reverse the conviction. We have stated that we do not approve thereof and feel that in good taste the objection thereto should have been sustained by the trial court; but in line with our decisions set forth above and in view of the record in tMs case, we do not feel that reversible error is shown.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.