 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. State4/23/2004
s hand, then you will find the defendant guilty of Indecency with a Child by contact as charged in the indictment.
The application paragraph in this case limited the jury's deliberations to whether appellant had "engage in sexual contact by touching part of the genitals of [L.C.] . . . .by means of defendant's hand . . . ." The application paragraph sufficiently restricted the term "sexual contact" to the particular means alleged in the indictment. The application paragraph also limited the jury's deliberations to whether appellant intended to arouse and gratify his own sexual desire. Because the application paragraph adequately pointed the jury to the appropriate portion of the definition of "sexual conduct" in the abstract statement of the law, no error occurred. Thompson v. State, 12 S.W.3d 915, 921-22 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. ref'd). The jury could only have found appellant guilty of the charged offense if the evidence supported the precise allegations in the indictment. We overrule issue seven.
IMROPER JURY ARGUMENT
In his eighth issue, appellant complains of the following jury argument: You have an awesome responsibility, and you didn't ask for it. I know you didn't ask for this job. Okay? But you're here, and the first part of the trial was about him. It was about giving him a fair trial, and he got his fair trial. And you know what? He's lucky to be here, because how many of you people have said to yourselves what you would do if this were your child?
You heard from this child's father what he wanted to do. He's lucky he got a trial, and he got a fair trial. But it's not about him any more, because it is about protecting ourselves. You know, for you to protect your own child, it's expected, it's even obligated. But protecting other people's children, that's a noble calling. A lot of people came in here this week because they have a calling. And now your community has called the 12 of you here to do the same. And it's a hard responsibility because the strength of any society is measured by how it protects its weakest members.
At trial, appellant objected that the prosecutor's argument was "improper." Appellant now argues that the prosecutor was asking members of the jury to place themselves in the shoes of the victim's father. He also contends that the argument "was tantamount to a call for vigilantism."
The approved general areas of argument are (1) summation of the evidence, (2) any reasonable deduction from the evidence, (3) an answer to the argument of opposing counsel, and (4) plea for law enforcement. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. Crim . App. 2000). Even when an argument exceeds the permissible bounds of these approved areas, it will not constitute reversible error unless, in light of the record as a whole, it is extreme or manifestly improper, violative of a mandatory statute, or injects new facts into the trial proceeding harmful to the accused. Id. The remarks must have been a willful and calculated effort on the part of the state to deprive the accused of a fair and impartial trial. Id. In examining challenges to jury argument, appellate courts are to consider the remark in the context in which it appears. Denison v. State, 651 S.W.2d 754, 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).
Appellant contends that the prosecutor improperly asked the jurors to place themselves in the shoes of the victim's family. However, the prosecutor's statement that appellant was lucky to get a trial was simply a summation of the evidence. It was an appropriate matter for argument because L.C.'s father testified that when he found out appellant had sexually assaulted his little boy, he was so angry that he "wanted to just go out
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|