CAUSE NO.  

THE STATE OF TEXAS

V.

DEFENDANT

§	IN THE  ___________COURT
§
§	OF
§
§	________ COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO LIMIT JURY ARGUMENT
OF STATE AT THE PUNISHMENT STAGE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
	NOW COMES,  Defendant, and files this Motion to Limit Jury Argument of State at the Punishment Stage, and for cause would show the Court as follows:
I.
	There are four permissible areas of jury argument for the State:
	a.	a summary of evidence;
	b.	discussion of reasonable deductions from the evidence;
	c.	response to arguments of defense counsel; and
	d.	a proper plea for law enforcement.
The Court should order the State to confine its summation to those areas and to refrain from any mention whatsoever of the various arguments set forth below which have caused appellate courts to reverse convictions.
II.
	a.	That the prosecutor not recommend a specific term of years and request that the jury rely on his expertise in setting the punishment.  Irving v. State, 573 S.W.2d 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

	b.	That the prosecutor not argue that the jury need not be concerned with probation as the judge in his wisdom could grant it.  Blount v. State, 509 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

	c.	That the prosecutor not request a specific term of years and then tell the jury that he cannot disclose the reasons for requesting such a sentence.  Haynes v. State, 663 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. App.─Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, pet. ref'd.) (prosecutor argued that the jury should assess at least 25 years but, "I can't tell you why").

	d.	That the prosecutor not ask the jury to consider other misconduct in assessing punishment for the offense of which the defendant was convicted, such as requesting that the jury punish the defendant for extraneous offenses and add the penalty to the term assessed for the offense on trial.  Klueppel v. State, 505 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Brown v. State, 530 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); Walls v. State, 548 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Lomas v. State, 707 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).

	e.	That the prosecutor not imply that a State's reputation witness was a crime victim of the defendant.  Jackson v. State, 529 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).

	f.	That the prosecutor not argue that the defendant failed to show remorse if the defendant did not testify at the punishment stage.  Owen v. State, 656 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).

	g.	That the prosecutor not call attention to the existence or operation of the parole law in any of the following respects:

		1.	That the jurors cannot discuss the parole law but can consider it if they personally know the law.  Clanton v. State, 528 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).

		2.	That the jury should differentiate between the sentence assessed and the length of time actually served.  Bates v. State, 643 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982).

		3.	That the jury should impose a sentence to compensate for the effect of the parole law.  Jones v. State, 725 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. App.─Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd.); Sneed v. State, 734 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App.─San Antonio 1987, pet. ref'd.); Jones v. State, 564 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (prosecutor argued that if the jury did not assess at least seven years, in view of the parole law, the sentence "won't mean anything.").

		4.	That the jury should impose a sentence long enough to allow for rehabilitation and let prison officials decide when to release the defendant.  Jones v. State, 522 S.W.2d 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).

		5.	That the prosecutor not use the records of prior convictions inferentially to show the operation of the parole law.  Marshburn v. State, 522 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (prosecutor argued, "You say five years and two years later they are out committing another offense."); Kearney v. State, 630 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Clark v. State, 643 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982).

	WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays that the Court grant this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

By:                                                     

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

	I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing motion was hand-delivered or mailed, postage prepaid, to the CrimDA/CtyAtty of ____________County, Texas, on the _____ day of .

CAUSE NO.  

THE STATE OF TEXAS

V.

§	IN THE 
§
§	OF
§
§	 COUNTY, TEXAS

O R D E R

	Defendant's Motion to Limit Jury Argument of State at the Punishment Stage is hereby:

 (GRANTED as to paragraphs . . . . )

                                                                                                                     
 (DENIED as to paragraphs . . . . )

	SIGNED on                                                             

							                                                             
						JUDGE PRESIDING