Willie Satchell v. State ( 1993 )

Satchell v. State

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-93-010-CR

     WILLIE SATCHELL,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 92-476-C

OPINION ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING

      On original submission we held that remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument could be taken as a plea for law enforcement. See Borjan v. State, 787 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). On motion for rehearing, Satchell argues that because the trial court sustained his objection, the court did not consider the statements as a plea for law enforcement and, thus, we should not.

      Assuming that the prosecutor's arguments were improper, an instruction by the court to disregard will normally obviate the harm unless the remark is so inflammatory that its prejudicial effect cannot reasonably be removed by the admonishment. Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). For an improper argument to rise to a level mandating reversal, it must be "extreme or manifestly improper, or inject new and harmful facts into evidence." Id. Here, the argument was not so extreme as to require reversal. We overrule point two.

      We deny Satchell's motion for rehearing.

                                                                                 BILL VANCE

                                                                                 Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

          Justice Cummings, and

          Justice Vance

Denied

Opinion delivered and filed September 8, 1993

Do not publish