Court Opinion

ID: 9760157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:41:29.022895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.570355
License: Public Domain

*253ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant complains of our disposition of his Bills of Exception Nos. 2 and 4, which relate to argument.
The remark of the district attorney “and I hate to be called on and tell a defense lawyer that they don’t live by the Bible quoted” was objected to on the ground that same was manifestly improper and was outside the record. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the remark. Appellant then moved for mistrial, which was overruled.
While we do not approve the argument, we find no such error therein which, in view of the entire record, would warrant a reversal. The absence of a showing as to what appellant’s counsel had argued does not affect our holding.
The serious question arises from the certification in the bill which follows the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the complained of remark:
“Whereupon counsel for the defense contended to the Court that said statement was so prejudicial and inflammatory that same could not be cured by instruction of the Court and moved the Court to declare a mistrial on the grounds that the remark was so highly prejudicial and manifestly improper that their effect could not be withdrawn from the jury, which motion the Court overruled. When in truth and in fact said remark., were so prejudicial and inflammatory same could not be cured.”
The trial judge qualified the bill and declined to certify that “the remark was prejudicial and inflammatory to the extent any injury caused thereby could not be cured by instructions by the Court as stated in the bill.”
Appellant excepted to the qualifications and, the trial court not having prepared and filed his own bill, Bill of Exception No. 2 must be considered as though allowed without qualification.
It does not follow that we must construe the language of the bill as certifying error requiring that the conviction be set aside. The most recent authorities cited on original submission are deemed to support our holding to the contrary.
*254We overrule the contention that appellant was denied the constitutional right to be confronted by the witnesses against him or the right to cross-examine such witnesses by the argument complained of in Bills 2 and 4.
Bill No. 2 shows that the complained of remark was withdrawn and the jury instructed to disregard it.
Bill No. 4 shows that the remarks related to conduct of defense counsel charged to have occurred in the presence of the jury. The argument therefore injected no facts with which the jury was not already familiar.
The majority remain convinced that the argument complained of was not of such prejudicial nature as to have materially affected or altered the jury’s verdict.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.