argument to be reversible error in Texas

1949Stanchel v. State, 89 Tex. Cr.

1943Stanchel v. State, 89 Texas Crim.

1975The Court noted that such argument was invited and was in reply to statements made by the defense counsel when he argued: "(1) `* * * I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the information Mr. Whaley (prosecutor) had when he started this case, was completely different than what came out from the witness stand." "(2) `They (prosecutors) don't want to have a struggle inside the apartment, because that doesn't go along with whatever the story that you want to accept that the complainant has.'" Judge Hawkins, in Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401 , 257 S.W. 548, 550 (1924), stated: "We think

1975See also Thompson v. State, 480 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Hoover v. State, 449 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Green v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 442 , 221 S.W.2d 612 (1949); Stovall v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 495 , 221 S.W.2d 278 (1949); Erisman’s Manual of Reversible Errors, First Edition, Sections 512, 513; and 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Section 436, page 657.

1975The Court noted that such argument was invited and was in reply to statements made by the defense counsel when he argued: "(1) `* * * I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the information Mr. Whaley (prosecutor) had when he started this case, was completely different than what came out from the witness stand." "(2) `They (prosecutors) don't want to have a struggle inside the apartment, because that doesn't go along with whatever the story that you want to accept that the complainant has.'" Judge Hawkins, in Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401 , 257 S.W. 548, 550 (1924), stated: "We think

1975The Court noted that such argument was invited and was in reply to statements made by the defense counsel when he argued: "(1) ‘* * * I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the information Mr. Whaley (prosecutor) had when he started this case, was completely different than what came out from the witness stand.’ “(2) ‘They (prosecutors) don’t want to have a struggle inside the apartment, because that doesn’t go along with whatever the story that you want to accept that the complainant has.’ ” Judge Hawkins, in Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401 , 257 S.W. 548, 550 (1924), stated: “We thin

1975R. 495, 221 S.W.2d 278 (1949); Erisman's Manual of Reversible Errors, First Edition, Sections 512, 513; and 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Section 436, page 657.

1975See also Thompson v. State, 480 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Hoover v. State, 449 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Green v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 442 , 221 S.W.2d 612 (1949); Stovall v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 495 , 221 S.W.2d 278 (1949); Erisman’s Manual of Reversible Errors, First Edition, Sections 512, 513; and 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Section 436, page 657.

1975The Court noted that such argument was invited and was in reply to statements made by the defense counsel when he argued: "(1) `* * * I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the information Mr. Whaley (prosecutor) had when he started this case, was completely different than what came out from the witness stand." "(2) `They (prosecutors) don't want to have a struggle inside the apartment, because that doesn't go along with whatever the story that you want to accept that the complainant has.'" Judge Hawkins, in Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401 , 257 S.W. 548, 550 (1924), stated: "We think

1975The Court noted that such argument was invited and was in reply to statements made by the defense counsel when he argued: "(1) `* * * I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the information Mr. Whaley (prosecutor) had when he started this case, was completely different than what came out from the witness stand." "(2) `They (prosecutors) don't want to have a struggle inside the apartment, because that doesn't go along with whatever the story that you want to accept that the complainant has.'" Judge Hawkins, in Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401 , 257 S.W. 548, 550 (1924), stated: "We think

1992Pollard , 552 S.W.2d at 477 . 3.

1990Id.

1985Kerns v. State, 550 S.W.2d 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).

1983Further, McKenzie concedes that “this Court should not hold an argument to be reversible error unless it is in extreme cases where the language complained of is manifestly improper, harmful and prejudicial” McKenzie, 617 S.W.2d at 221 .

1983The other case cited by the majority to justify the reversal was Garrett v. State, 632 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) which affirmed the conviction by holding that error, less prejudicial than that found in McKenzie , was harmless.

1965The state also cites the case of Baker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 627 , and says that the reasoning there applied should control under these circumstances.

1942R. 401 , is: “We think the only safe rule to be that this court should not hold an argument to be reversible error unless it is in extreme cases where the language complained of is manifestly improper, and prejudicial, or where a mandatory provision of the statute is violated, or some new and harmful fact injected into the case.” See also: Heidle v. State, 86 S. W. (2d) 641 , 129 Tex. Cr.

1942R. 401 , is: “We think the only safe rule to be that this court should not hold an argument to be reversible error unless it is in extreme cases where the language complained of is manifestly improper, and prejudicial, or where a mandatory provision of the statute is violated, or some new and harmful fact injected into the case.” See also: Heidle v. State, 86 S. W. (2d) 641 , 129 Tex. Cr.