Andre Demont Thompson v. State, 01-14-00862-CR

Andre Demont Thompson was indicted for murder; tried in October 2014, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment; he appealed the punishment-phase argument.
Key eyewitness (Jackie Bergeron) testified that shots occurred after an exchange in an apartment-complex courtyard; Bergeron later retrieved a gun from the victim and fled.
A resident saw one man chase and shoot another but could not positively identify the shooter as Thompson.
DNA testing on various items excluded Thompson; shell casings were not tested. Thompson presented an alibi (trip to Galveston) supported by a family member.
During punishment-phase closing, the prosecutor repeatedly compared Thompson to a lion and the man-eating shark from the film Jaws; defense objections were overruled and no curative instruction was given.
On appeal, Thompson argued the prosecutor’s animal/monster comparisons constituted improper, inflammatory name-calling beyond the record and warranted reversal or a new punishment trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s repeated comparisons of Thompson to a lion/"man-eating shark" during punishment constituted improper argument	Prosecutor: comparisons illustrated dangerousness and urged jurors to consider public safety in punishment	Thompson: comparisons were name-calling, outside the record, inflammatory, and not within permissible jury-argument categories; objections should have been sustained and remedy granted	The brief argues the comments were improper and harmful; it asks the appellate court to reverse or remand for new punishment (final appellate holding not included in this brief)

Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (describes the four permissible areas of jury argument)
Gonzalez v. State, 115 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003) (prosecutor’s comparisons to notorious figures are outside the record and can be reversible error)
Brown v. State, 978 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998) (reversal where prosecutor compared defendant to notorious killers)
Stell v. State, 711 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1986) (comparison to Lee Harvey Oswald was highly improper)
Thompson v. State, 729 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1987) (comparison to a venomous spider and tattoo reference found reversible)
Thompson v. State, 89 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (addresses prosecutorial conduct in argument)
Williams v. State, 417 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (discusses history of improper jury arguments by a prosecutor’s office and judicial duty to maintain courtroom dignity)