658 SW2D 250 - Short v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2005

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.

COHEN, Justice,

¶1concurring.

¶2I reluctantly join the court’s disposition of the appellant’s final ground of error complaining that the prosecutor’s jury argument constituted an improper comment on the failure of the accused to testify. I believe such action is required by the majority opinion in Nickens v. State, 604 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Cr.App.1980, en banc ). Although I believe the prosecutor’s argument in this case is slightly more specific in calling the jury’s attention to the failure of the accused to testify than was the prosecutor’s argument in Nickens, supra,I cannot say that the difference is great enough to distinguish the two cases. If we were writing on a clean slate, I would be inclined to hold as did the three dissenters in Nickens; however, the law is to the contrary and I am bound to follow it.

¶3I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.