Morgan v. State, 817 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Morgan v. State, 817 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Joe Alviar, Jr. v. State (texapp, 1992-08-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Joe Alviar, Jr. v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
The inquiries as to which appellant made proper objection cannot be dismissed as `merely cumulative.' The errors asserted by appellant were preserved and we find them reversible." Id. ; see also Morgan v. State , 816 S.W.2d 98, 102 (Tex. App.) (holding that the appellant preserved error even though he did not object immediately because the comments "did not become blatantly objectionable until the second or third time the prosecutor made a comment"), pet. ref'd per curiam , 817 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Billy Wayne MORGAN
v.
The STATE of Texas
No. 1022-91.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct 30, 1991.
817 S.W.2d 706
1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 224
1991 WL 219085
Walter M. Reaves, Jr., West, for appellant., Paul E. Gartner, Jr., Dist. Atty., Tanya S. Dohoney and Gina Parker, Asst. Dist. Attys., Linda M. Gassaway, Waco, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal he contended that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to make comments on his failure to testify. The Court of Appeals agreed that there was error but held such to be harmless under Tex.R.App.Pro. 81(b)(2). Morgan v. State, 816 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.App.-Waco, 1991). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review and this Court has declined to grant review.

As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield, v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.