holding that a contention on appeal that the State’s jury argument commented on a defendant’s failure to testify was forfeited because at trial the defendant objected on the ground that the argument was ―outside the record‖
How later courts described this case
- holding that a contention on appeal that the State’s jury argument commented on a defendant’s failure to testify was forfeited because at trial the defendant objected on the ground that the argument was ―outside the record‖
- stating that a district court's procedure of postponing veniremembers' service "is proper upon a request from a juror"
- objection that “the [closing] argument went outside the record” did not preserve argument that statements were “a further comment on appellant’s failure to testify”
- objection that argument went outside the record was not sufficient to preserve an appellate claim that the argument was a comment on appellant’s failure to testify
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I write to emphasize that this is a direct appeal, not a habeas corpus application seeking relief in the nature of an out-of-time appeal. See Ex Parte Dickey (Tex.Cr.App.1976) No. 51,405, decided May 4, 1976). Therefore, since appellant gave notice of appeal within ten days after sentence, his appeal is before this Court. Art. 44.08, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.