holding that the State's argument that the jurors should think about the fact that they would "want to give [neighbors] an answer [they] [could] be proud of, that [their] friends and neighbors [could] be proud of" was a legitimate plea for law enforcement
How later courts described this case
- holding that the State's argument that the jurors should think about the fact that they would "want to give [neighbors] an answer [they] [could] be proud of, that [their] friends and neighbors [could] be proud of" was a legitimate plea for law enforcement
- comment that “you will want to give them an answer you can be proud of, that your friends and neighbors can be proud of’ constituted a proper plea for law enforcement
- “After you leave this trial, your friends and your neighbors are going to ask you what happened.... [Y]ou will want to give them an answer you can be proud of, that your friends and neighbors can be proud of.”
- asking the jury to give a verdict they, their friends and neighbors can be proud of
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Judge,
dissenting.
I must dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the prosecutor’s argument about “friends and neighbors” was a proper plea for law enforcement rather than an improper reference to community expectations. None of the cases which are cited deals with this distinction. Elsewhere the author of the majority opinion has dealt correctly with the distinction. In Overstreet v. State, 470 S.W.2d 653, 654 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (Onion, P. J.), we held that the prosecutor’s argument that the jury “ ‘write a verdict of which you may be proud’ ” was “a plea for law enforcement rather than an urging of the jury to convict because of the community’s desires or expectations.” This distinction often has been made. Myers v. State, 468 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The holding of Overstreet, supra, that a prosecutor may plead for law enforcement does not mean that he may ask for a conviction because of community desires and expectations. See Hendrix v. State, 474 S.W.2d 230, 233, note 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
“The jury, just as this Court, should never concern itself with whether the performance of their duties receives popular acclaim. They, just as we, have sworn to administer justice in each particular case. Our Constitution provides that all men, whether innocent or guilty, regardless of their station in life or the nature of the crime for which they may be accused, shall be tried by a dispassionate jury solely on the facts of that case and in accord with rules tested and proved sound by the passage of time.” Cox v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 134 , 247 S.W.2d 262, 265 (1952).
The argument in this case was significantly different from the one in Overstreet, supra, and it crossed the boundary from a plea for law enforcement into a plea for a conviction because of community expectations. The prosecutor expressly told the jury to return a verdict “that your friends and neighbors can be proud of.” This reference to community desires and expectations was accentuated by the rest of the quoted argument, including the wholly incorrect statement that the jurors would be under judicial instructions to talk about “what happened.”
*849 The State disingenuously suggests that the reference to a verdict “you can be proud of, that your friends and neighbors can be proud of” implied merely “a fair verdict.” From the standpoint of the jury, it must have been inferred that a verdict “that your friends and neighbors can be proud of” referred to a guilty verdict, not a fair verdict. It is not improper to ask for a guilty verdict, but it is improper to ask for one on that basis. The trial court erred in overruling the appellant’s objections.
The judgment should be reversed.