Sohail Ahmed Qureshi v. State
02-15-00367-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Sohail Ahmed Qureshi was indicted for causing injury to an elderly individual and aggravated robbery; he pleaded not guilty and was tried with counsel.
- Evidence showed Qureshi attempted to steal money at a mosque and struck a man with a tire iron.
- During the State’s opening statement the prosecutor compared the case to the September 11, 2001 attacks and framed the case as "good versus bad, right versus wrong." Qureshi did not object at trial.
- The jury convicted Qureshi on both counts; the trial court sentenced him to 20 years for aggravated robbery and 10 years for injuring an elderly individual.
- On appeal Qureshi argued the prosecutor’s opening statement unduly inflamed the jury and shifted the burden of proof, warranting reversal.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed only whether the complaint was preserved and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Qureshi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor's opening statement comparing the case to 9/11 unduly inflamed jury and shifted burden | Qureshi forfeited review by failing to object at trial; no preservation so appellate review is barred | The 9/11 comparison so prejudiced Qureshi that the court should reverse in the interest of justice despite no trial objection | Error not preserved; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (preservation rule requires timely objection stating specific grounds)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (courts should not address merits of unpreserved complaints)
- Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (opening-statement complaints must be objected to at trial to preserve error)