holding that the prosecutor’s statements that the inclusion of self-defense in the charge “doesn’t mean that the Court believes that is what happened” was improper because the statements were “direct references to the trial court’s beliefs about the case”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the prosecutor’s statements that the inclusion of self-defense in the charge “doesn’t mean that the Court believes that is what happened” was improper because the statements were “direct references to the trial court’s beliefs about the case”
- holding that, during closing arguments, a party may not refer to any belief, or non-belief, of the trial court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION
BROWN, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Appellant was tried before a jury which assessed punishment at ten (10) years in the Texas Department of Corrections.
In his first ground of error appellant contends that the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument to the jury at the guilt or innocence stage of the trial. The remark was made during the following exchange:
“Now let me talk to you about some of the things the Court charged you on. Now, understand that I know that Mr. Macaluso explained to you in Voir Dire the fact that you have things in here on self-defense and voluntary manslaughter, doesn’t mean that the Court believes that is what happened.
“MR. MITCHELL (Defense Attorney): Your Honor, I would object to any reference as to what the Court believes or does not believe. The Court does not comment on the evidence.
“THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection.
“MR. MITCHELL: Note our exception. “MR. HUFF (Prosecutor): Now, folks, that means that you can consider what I am about to say. That doesn’t mean that the Court believes that self-defense is really what happened or that voluntary manslaughter is really what happened. “MR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, could I have a continuing objection to this argument?
“THE COURT: Yes you can have a running objection.”
Relying on Article 38.05, Vernon’s Ann.C. C.P. and McClory v. State, 510 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), appellant contends that the prosecutor’s argument prejudiced the jury by indicating that the trial court did not believe appellant’s defense of self-defense.
Article 38.05, supra, provides as follows: “In ruling upon the admissibility of evidence, the judge shall not discuss or comment upon the weight of the same or its bearing in the case, but shall simply decide whether or not it is admissible, nor shall he, at any stage of the proceeding previous to the return of the verdict, make any remark calculated to convey to the jury his opinion of the case.”
In McClory v. State, supra, the prosecutor’s remarks occurred during the following exchange:
“MR. ETHINGTON: . . . Also in the charge, there’s some talk about self-defense. Simply because this is the charge that doesn’t mean the judge believes it; it’s in there because the defendant raised that issue—
“MR. MARTIN (Defense Counsel): Objection, Your Honor; I object to his saying what the Judge believes about anything.
“THE COURT: He didn’t say I did; he said I didn’t. Overruled.”
We reversed the conviction, stating,
“The court, instead of merely ruling upon the objection as he should have done, made a comment upon the complained of argument . . . from which the jury could logically surmise that the court did not believe appellant’s defensive issue of self-defense . . . ”
*384 The improper comment of the trial court concerning the State’s argument, when considered along with the remarks of the prosecuting attorney made before and after the court’s ruling, constituted reversible error.
In the instant case the trial court did not, as in McClory v. State, supra, make any comment about the prosecutor’s remark; but merely overruled appellant’s objection to “any reference as to what the Court believes or does not believe.” The McClory case is instructive on the issue of whether the prosecutor’s comment alone is so prejudicial as to require reversal. Our opinion in McClory recites the rule that to be within the stamp of approval jury arguments need to be within the area of (1) summation of the evidence, (2) reasonable deduction from the evidence, (3) answer to argument of opposing counsel, or (4) a plea for law enforcement.
“A prosecutor may without referring to any belief of the trial court properly advise the jury that any relevant testimony which raises a material fact issue will cause the court to submit a charge explaining the law on that issue.” McClory v. State, supra, at p. 934 . Such advice, as well as any “reasonable and proper explanation of the law of the case as contained in the court’s charge” would fall within the enumerated rules of jury argument.
The prosecutor’s remarks in the instant case go beyond the standards set out above. The statements both before and after the court’s ruling were direct references to the trial court’s beliefs about the case. Under the rules set out above, such remarks constitute reversible error.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinion approved by the Court.