# Brown v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 3, 1954 · 159 Tex. Crim. 357

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1486740

## Case

- **Full name:** Al Brown v. State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 3, 1954
- **Citations:** 159 Tex. Crim. 357; 264 S.W.2d 119; 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Woodley
- **Judges:** Woodley
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1486740

## Opinion text

WOODLEY, Judge.
The offense is perjury; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant did not testify.
Bills of Exception Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 relate to argument of the attorney for the state.
All of these bills certify that the remarks complained of constituted a reference, allusion, and comment upon the failure of the defendant to testify and could not reasonably be applied to the failure to produce testimony other than his own.
Applying the rule stated in Clary v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. Rep. 257, 234 S.W. 2d 424 , and Taylor v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. Rep. 452, 243 S.W. 2d 582 , and failing to find any contradiction of the certification or a showing that the trial court was in error in certifying that the argument violated the provisions of Art. 710 C.C.P., these bills require that the conviction be set aside. See Brown v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. Rep. 269, 122 S.W. 565 ; Thompson v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. Rep. 45, 19 S.W. 2d 316 ; and Burns v. State, 141 Tex. Cr. Rep. 557, 150 S.W. 2d 384 .
There are a number of questions raised as to the validity of the indictment. We find the allegations to be somewhat confus
*358
ing and express the view that if appellant is to be further prosecuted a new indictment should be returned.
We also express the view that upon another trial, if the evidence be the same, the court should charge on circumstantial evidence and that the search warrant and affidavit should not be admitted as evidence before the jury.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1486740. Public record. Not legal advice.