State v. Lopez

810 S.W.2d 401, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 127, 1991 WL 99944
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 12, 1991
DocketNo. 891-90
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 810 S.W.2d 401 (State v. Lopez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Lopez, 810 S.W.2d 401, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 127, 1991 WL 99944 (Tex. 1991).

Opinions

[402]*402OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

OVERSTREET, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of murder and was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Third Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on appellant’s ground for review contending that the trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial when the prosecutor commented on his failure to testify at the guilt stage of the trial. 793 S.W.2d 738.

We originally granted the State’s petition on the ground for review claiming that the court of appeals erred in ignoring defense arguments that implicitly questioned the existence of a motive by emphasizing the bizarre nature of the slaying coupled with bad-faith suggestions that appellant was peaceable and that exculpatory evidence was secreted; and that the court of appeals erred in concluding the argument is a flagrant comment on a defendant’s failure to testify, incurable by instruction.

Upon review of the briefs and arguments of both the State and appellant, we conclude that the State’s petition was improvidently granted. Although this offense represents a heinous crime, we are compelled by the record, by argument of counsel, and by review of the reasoning of the Third Court of Appeals, that its judgment should not be disturbed. The record supports the court of appeals’ decision that the prosecutor’s argument was a violation of Article I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The role of this Court as a reviewing tribunal is to diligently preserve the integrity of our Constitution. Accordingly, the State’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J„ dissent.

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

Related

Vaughn Levy v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005
Jason Allen Schirmer v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999
Tawana K. Burgess v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999
Trevino v. State
979 S.W.2d 78 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Adolph Trevino v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998
Morris Searcy v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997
Harry Johnson, Jr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997
David Lopez v. State
939 S.W.2d 775 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Lopez v. State
928 S.W.2d 528 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1996)
George Medearis v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996
Cacy v. State
901 S.W.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Andre Sanders v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995
Campbell v. State
900 S.W.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Scott v. State
867 S.W.2d 148 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Janet Delores Scott v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993
Juan Luis Zarate v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993
Skidmore v. State
838 S.W.2d 748 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Nielsen v. State
836 S.W.2d 245 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
State v. Jolie Michelle Howard
838 S.W.2d 926 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Farid Bastani v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
810 S.W.2d 401, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 127, 1991 WL 99944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lopez-texcrimapp-1991.