argument explicitly impugns defense in Texas

2026Under our law, “a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character.” See Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex. Crim.

2025But the Court of Criminal Appeals has cautioned that “[a]lthough it is impossible to articulate a precise rule regarding these kinds of argument, it is fair to say that a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense 1 In Coble, the prosecutor had referred to “the saying among lawyers” that if you don’t have the facts or law on your side, you argue “something ridiculous.” 871 S.W.2d at 203 . 11 counsel’s character.” Mosley v. State, 983 S

2008App. 1984). 38: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 39: See Scheanette , 144 S.W.3d at 510 ; Ingham , 679 S.W.2d at 509 . 40: See Guy v. State , 160 S.W.3d 606, 617 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a prosecutor risks improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument refers to defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character”). 41: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 42: On appeal, he also briefs Rule 404(a) and (b).

2008Roxanne Hayes’s Testimony 39 … See Scheanette, 144 S.W.3d at 510 ; Ingham, 679 S.W.2d at 509 . 40 … See Guy v. State, 160 S.W.3d 606, 617 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a prosecutor risks improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument refers to defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character”). 41 … See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 15 In his seventh issue, appellant argues that the trial court improperly admitted Roxanne Hayes’s testimony relating an incident somewhat similar to Cleveland’

2006Though the rule is not precise, the court explained that “a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character.” Id.

2004Although the rule is not precise, the court explained that “a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character.” Id.

2014Even when couched in terms of a rebuttal, proper defense counsel’s arguments “cannot serve as a basis for permitting prosecutorial comments that ‘cast aspersion on defense counsel’s veracity with the jury.’ ” Cole v. State, 194 S.W.3d 538, 544 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref d) (quoting Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 259 ); accord Dinkins, 894 S.W.2d at 357 .

2008The Court of Criminal Appeals has cautioned that "a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel's character." Cole v. State , 194 S.W.3d 538, 544 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (quoting Mosely , 983 S.W.2d at 259 ).

2021“Although it is impossible to articulate a precise rule regarding these kinds of argument[s], it is fair to say that a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character.” Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tex. Crim.

2019“Although it is impossible to articulate a precise rule regarding these kinds of argument[s], it is fair to say that a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character.” Brown, 270 S.W.3d at 572 (alteration in original) (quoting Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex. Crim.

2008App. 1984). 38: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 39: See Scheanette , 144 S.W.3d at 510 ; Ingham , 679 S.W.2d at 509 . 40: See Guy v. State , 160 S.W.3d 606, 617 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a prosecutor risks improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument refers to defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character”). 41: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 42: On appeal, he also briefs Rule 404(a) and (b).

2008App. 1984). 38: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 39: See Scheanette , 144 S.W.3d at 510 ; Ingham , 679 S.W.2d at 509 . 40: See Guy v. State , 160 S.W.3d 606, 617 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a prosecutor risks improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument refers to defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character”). 41: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 42: On appeal, he also briefs Rule 404(a) and (b).

2008App. 1984). 38: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 39: See Scheanette , 144 S.W.3d at 510 ; Ingham , 679 S.W.2d at 509 . 40: See Guy v. State , 160 S.W.3d 606, 617 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a prosecutor risks improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument refers to defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character”). 41: See Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 42: On appeal, he also briefs Rule 404(a) and (b).

2008Roxanne Hayes’s Testimony 39 … See Scheanette, 144 S.W.3d at 510 ; Ingham, 679 S.W.2d at 509 . 40 … See Guy v. State, 160 S.W.3d 606, 617 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “a prosecutor risks improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument refers to defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character”). 41 … See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814 . 15 In his seventh issue, appellant argues that the trial court improperly admitted Roxanne Hayes’s testimony relating an incident somewhat similar to Cleveland’

2025We view an alleged argument error “in light of the facts adduced at trial and in the context of the entire argument.” McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 239 (Tex. Crim.

2021Gilbert v. State, 494 S.W.3d 758, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d).

2016This Court has stated that proper jury arguments generally falls with one of four areas: (1) summation of the evidence, (2) reasonable deductions from the evidence, (3) answers to an argument of opposing counsel, and (4) pleas for law enforcement.127 “We have consistently held that argument that strikes at a defendant over the shoulders of defense counsel is improper.”128 A prosecutor “runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s characte

2016Weeks v. State, 396 S.W.3d 737, 746 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2013, pet. refd).

2016App. 2011). 128 Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 821 (Tex. Crim.

2013A prosecutor runs the risk of improperly “striking” at a defendant over the shoulders of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally or when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsel’s character. 16 Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 259 ; Magana, 177 S.W.3d at 674–75. “[A]rguments attacking defense counsel are improper because they unfairly inflame the jury against the accused.” Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 147 (Tex. Crim.

2013Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 259 ; Magana, 177 S.W.3d at 674-75 . “[Arguments attacking defense counsel are improper because they unfairly inflame the jury against the accused.” Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 147 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

2013See, e.g., Gaddis v. State, 753 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Tex. Crim.

2006However, we note that although defense counsel is protected against unwarranted attacks, this “does not create a sanctuary to which defense counsel may retreat with immunity and thereby deny the prosecutor the right to reply to counsel’s argument.” Strokes v. State , 506 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex. Crim.