# Denison v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 4, 1983 · 651 S.W.2d 754

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680488

## Case

- **Full name:** Patrick DENISON, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 4, 1983
- **Citations:** 651 S.W.2d 754; 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 993
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Odom
- **Judges:** Campbell, Clinton, Davis, Miller, Odom, Teague, Tom
- **Cited by:** 167 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/9680488

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding an objection that was “general in nature” fails to preserve error
- emphasizing that challenge to -jury argument is considered “in the context in which it appears”

## Opinion text

ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority opinion’s ruling on the prosecutor’s jury argument.
The first argument that was improper constituted an improper comment about defense counsel. The prosecutor argued:
“... what would he [appellant] have to do before they [defense counsel] would stand up here and tell you members of the jury to send him to the penitentiary....”
See Bray v. State, 478 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Spencer v. State, 466 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The majority’s conclusion that the argument was a proper opinion that probation was not appropriate in this case ignores the fact that the argument actually was that defense counsel should not have argued in favor of probation.
I also do not agree with the majority’s statement that evidence of appellant being on probation for burglary demonstrates he had terrorized others. It is not an element of burglary that any person be on the burglarized premises or even in the vicinity at the time of the offense. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 30.02. If the argument is construed as a reference to the facts of the offense for which appellant was on probation, which the majority apparently is doing, it goes beyond the permissible limit of showing only the fact of conviction.
For these reasons I dissent.
CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., join.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680488. Public record. Not legal advice.