holding that the prosecutor’s reference to the defendant as an “animal” was not an improper deduction from the evidence because the defendant had brutally tortured and murdered a 58-year-old man
How later courts described this case
- holding that the prosecutor’s reference to the defendant as an “animal” was not an improper deduction from the evidence because the defendant had brutally tortured and murdered a 58-year-old man
- holding that a reference to the accused as an animal is not improper when the defendant had brutally tortured and murdered a 58-year-old man
- finding that prosecutor's reference to defendant as an "animal" was not improper because "the record . . . reflects a 'bestial aspect.'"
- holding that reference to defendant being an "animal" "was warranted" and was "not an improper deduction from the evidence"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated in Part I of my dissenting opinion in Shippy v. State, Tex. *287 Cr.App., 556 S.W.2d 246 (delivered April 27, 1977), I dissent to the majority’s disposition of appellant’s grounds of error relating to the trial court’s violation of the mandate of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and in particular, appellant’s complaint of the erroneous exclusion of prospective juror Tillman.
PHILLIPS, J., joins in this dissent.