 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Orchard v. State9/6/2001
the objection.
THE STATE: I'm responding to his arguments. Do we have to wait? He's making a big deal that there was no accident. He says no one was endangered. Well, thank God no one was on the shoulder when he happened to be driving on it on and off. We don't have to wait. The law does not require us to wait until somebody is maimed or seriously injured before they're guilty of a felony offense of Driving While Intoxicated.
We talked about it in voir dire. It's a safety law. That's why we have it. Hopefully somebody learns from it when they get convicted of it. That's why it's here. That's why we're here to talk about it today. We don't have to wait till somebody dies before we enforce the law.
DEFENSE: Can I have a running objection to that type of argument, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
During closing argument, appellant's trial counsel stated that appellant "wasn't endangering anyone at all." He also stated that "we don't have any wreck here," and "we don't have any aggravating circumstances whatsoever . . . ."
We hold that the State's argument was permissible as an answer to appellant's closing argument. Brandley, 691 S.W.2d at 712. Furthermore, the State's argument was also permissible as a plea for law enforcement. Pittman v. State, 9 S.W.3d 432, 434-35 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Strahan v. State, 172 Tex. 478, 358 S.W.2d 626, 627 (1962)); Bice v. State, 642 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no pet.). As a result, we overrule appellant's second point of error.
Having overruled both of appellant's points of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Do Not Publish -- TEX. R. APP. P. 47.3(b).
|