 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sherrard v. State5/22/2000
BR>
(1) appellant was seen exiting the car soon after the accident; (2) he was found in a pasture; (3) no other person was found; (4) appellant's nose was bloody; (5) blood was found on the car's steering wheel; and (6) appellant told the emergency medical technician that he had hit his nose on the steering wheel. Under these circumstances, we conclude a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was operating the motor vehicle. We overrule the fourth point of error.Improper Argument
In his first, second, and third points of error, appellant complains about improper arguments made by the State during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. We have reviewed the relevant portions of the record and have found that, on each occasion, the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard when asked to do so.
In order to preserve jury argument error for appellate review, the defendant must (1) make an objection, (2) request an instruction to disregard, and (3) move for a mistrial. Cooks v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467, 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Here, appellant either did not seek an instruction to disregard or, if he did and such an instruction was given, seek a mistrial. Thus, he did not obtain an adverse ruling but received all the relief requested. Accordingly, nothing is presented for review. We overrule the first, second, and third points of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JOHN R. ROACH, JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
|