Cane v. State

698 S.W.2d 366, 1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 7094
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 23, 1984
DocketNo. 09-83-211-CR
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 698 S.W.2d 366 (Cane v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cane v. State, 698 S.W.2d 366, 1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 7094 (Tex. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

OPINION

DIES, Chief Justice.

Appellant pled guilty to a jury of aggravated kidnapping. The jury assessed punishment at twenty years in the Texas Department of Corrections. Appellant has perfected appeal to this Court.

Appellant’s first four grounds of error are grouped in his brief; they complain of that portion of the court’s charge entitled “Objectives of Law”. That portion of the court’s charge follows:

[367]*367“OBJECTIVES OF LAW:
“In arriving at your verdict, you should consider the following objectives of our criminal law:
“(1) To insure the public safety through:
“(A) The deterrent influence of the penalties provided:
“(B) The rehabilitation of those convicted, and;
“(C) Punishment as may be necessary to prevent likely reoccurrence of criminal behavior.
“(2) To give fair warning of what is prohibited and of the consequences of violation.
“(3) To prescribe penalties that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and that permits recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders.”

The trial judge commented, “ [T]he particular charge is in compliance with 1.02 of the Penal Code of Texas.” 1

Appellant properly objected to the inclusion of this language in the court’s charge.

In Hart v. State, 634 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), we find:

“It has been generally held that a charge on the objectives of the penal code is improper.” (authorities omitted)

On the authority of this case, we sustain these grounds of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand this case for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Teague v. State
703 S.W.2d 199 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Cane v. State
700 S.W.2d 26 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Cane v. State
698 S.W.2d 138 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
698 S.W.2d 366, 1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 7094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cane-v-state-texapp-1984.