Case ID: sw_250/html/1026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COTTON v. STATE.
    (No. 7101.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 7, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied May 16, 1923.)
    Criminal law <§=*l 119(4) — Remark of prosecuting attorney not reviewed in absence of showing of circumstances in bill of exceptions.
    On appeal from a conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, a bill of exceptions which complained of a statement in the argument of the prosecuting attorney referring to the suspended sentence law as a joke, but which did not show in what" connection the statement was made, what preceded it in the argument of appellant, nor the surroundings or setting of the argument, and which contained no special charge asking the jury not to consider the argument, did not show error.
    Appeal from District Court, Coleman County ; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
    Dan Cotton was convicted of the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Baker & Weatherred, of Coleman, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, with punishment of one year in the penitentiary.

This is a companion casé to No. 7100, James Hendley v. State, 250 S. W. 174, this day decided. The legal questions raised are identical, and call for the same disposition here as in that case. The facts are the same. No necessity exists for additional discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

But two questions are urged in appellant’s motion. The first relates to the insufficiency of the indictment. The indictment in this case is exactly similar to the one in cause No. 7100, Hendley v. State, 250 S. W. 174, heretofore decided by us. We think the indictment sufficient, and especially so in,view of the proof in this case. Appellant was charged with the manufacture of spirituous and vinous liquors capable of producing intoxication, and the testimony showed him to have been found in possession of a complete still, a number of barrels of mash, and quite a quantity of whisky which he admitted had been made by him and Hendley with said still.

The other question relates to the argument of the district attorney in which he referred to the suspended sentence law as a joke. The bill of exceptions purports to contain a requested charge asking the jury not to consider said remarks, but an inspection of the special charge which is contained in said bill of exceptions shows that it is in no wise pertinent to said remarks, nor can it be considered a special charge in reference thereto. While we would not think it proper for an attorney in a criminal case to ridicule or make, light of a law the application of which was invoked in the case on trial, still the bill of exceptions complaining of this matter does not show in what connection the statement of the prosecuting attorney was made or what preceded it in the argument of appellant, nor are we apprised of the surroundings or setting of said argument. No special charge was asked instructing the jury not to consider said argument.

In the condition the record is before us we do not believe same shows any error to have been committed, and the motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <&»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes