Lead Opinion
Poole was convicted of robbery by the Circuit Court of Russell County. His sentence was fixed at 10 years in the penitеntiary. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. That court, on the ground of improper argument to the jury by the Assistant District Attorney, reversed and remanded the cause.
“I want you to think about this and use your common sense. Judas was a man оf good reputation immediately before betraying Christ.”
An objection was overruled.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the overruling of thе objection constituted reversible error on authority of Mosley v. State,
The State petitions this court fоr a writ of certiorari. The State alleges that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is in conflict with a prior decision of this court on the same point of law contained in Wright v. State,
In Mosley the trial court charged the jury:
“ ‘Now, gentlemen, it has bеen argued to you about good character; and you know about good character. It has been argued by the defendant and by the State. The State brought or called to your attention some historical figures where a man had a good character and where they betrayed the good character they had. One man, Judas Iscariot betrayed his Savior after being a good consecrated, Godly man for a long time . so you see the mere fact that a man has a good character while it is a good to havе it does not excuse from crime.’ ”
Upon exception taken the trial court withdrew his remarks to historical figures and instructed the jury not to consider that part of his charge. This court said in reversing, the withdrawal was in a more or less perfunctory manner and did not eradicate the impression that the language of the trial judge was an argument against giving weight to proof of good character. The court stated:
“ . . . Defendant was due thе benefit of his proof concerning his good character without impairment of its weight or credibility by oral instruсtion from the court.”
The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals,
“Judas was the most despised man in Biblical history and the passage of centuries has only served to solidify that feeling in the hearts and minds of generations after generations of peoples evеrywhere on the globe. No more opprobrious epithet, nothing more demeaning, degrading or debasing сan be imagined than to liken a human being to Judas Iscariot.
“The assistant district attorney transcended all boundаries of legitimate argument in referring to Judas in connection with appellant and his good charactеr evidence, and committed prejudicial error . . . ”
We do not agree there was prejudicial errоr in referring to Judas. Judas, a disciple who handled the money of the twelve, became an informer and identified Christ to Roman soldiers when they intercepted and arrested Him in the Garden of Gethsemane during the night of what Christians now call Maundy Thursday. Judas did not commit any act which Christ did not already know about. Christ identified Judas at The Last Supper tо His disciples in the Upper Room as the one who would betray Him. A short time after the betrayal, Judas, so somе historians inform us, regretted his actions, threw away his
In Wright v. State, supra, reversible error was alleged because the District Attorney in his closing argument said in effect Judas had betrayed Christ, аnd Simon Peter had betrayed Christ three times and the defendant, in his three statements, had betrayed his wife, in that “in these three statements he had made he hasn’t told the truth exactly about the homicide of his wife.” As this court stated in the оpinion authored by Justice Harwood:
“Criminal trials are adversary proceedings, and . . . are not social affairs. Argument of counsel should not be so restricted as to prevent reference, by way of illustration, to historical facts and public characters, or to principles of divine law or biblical teachings.”
We adopt that language in this case.
The holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals in the case before us is in conflict with Wright and is due to be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring in result).
I concur in the holding expressеd in the majority opinion to the effect that counsel’s reference to Judas in his closing argument is protеcted by the “wide latitude of argument” rule; and, while I would not debate with my learned brothers on matters of theolоgy or Biblical history, I must assert that nothing contained in the majority opinion can dissuade a lifetime of teaсhing and conviction that Judas Iscariot was in every sense a despicable, reprehensible character, and this despite all my Calvinistic (Hardshell) indoctrination of predestination. Under either version (be he the subject of damnation or one to be pitied), the propriety of counsel’s argument is sustainable under our liberal rules of advocacy, including the right to reply in kind.