Salazar v. State

Decided October 4, 1965

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1965-10-04

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We cannot bring ourselves to conclude that the mere exhibition of scars standing alone constitutes reversible error. “The burden is upon the appellants to impress this Court with the Gruesomeness of the exhibition.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Jones v. State

Relies on Burns v. State · McMurrey v. State · 158 Tex. Crim. 35 - Grims v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-10-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1988

11 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING

MORRISON, Judge.

¶2The appellants assert, and we agree that the question as to the exhibition of scars on the body of deceased’s companion is before us for consideration. We are not, however, impressed with the claim that reversible error is reflected thereby. We cannot bring ourselves to conclude that the mere exhibition of scars standing alone constitutes reversible error.

¶3The burden is upon the appellants to impress this Court with the gruesomeness of the exhibition. This was done to the writer’s satisfaction in Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 388 S.W.2d 690. These appellants have failed to do so in the case at bar. See also Grims v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 253 S.W.2d 52, and McMurrey v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 439, 168 S.W.2d 858.

¶4Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.