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Do not publish