Case ID: tex-crim_109/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clay King v. The State.
    No. 11790.
    Delivered May 2, 1928.
    Sale of Intoxicating Liquor — Argument of Counsel — No Statement of Facts — Cannot Be Appraised.
    Where appellant complains of the argument of state’s counsel and there is no statement of facts brought forward and the court qualified appellant’s bills with the statement that one of the assertions made in the argument by state’s counsel was invited by appellant, and the other argument complained of was withdrawn, no error appears.
    Appeal from the District Court of Garza County. Tried below before the Hon. Gordon B. McGuire, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for the sale of intoxicating liquor, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson of Canton, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor, punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts is found in the record.

The objections filed to the court’s charge turn upon the facts in the absence of which this court is unable to appraise the objections. . The exceptions taken in two instances to the argument of the District Attorney cannot well be considered without knowing what evidence was before the jury. As presented in the record the exceptions do not seem to present such error as calls for reversal. In one instance the court says the argument was invited by a statement of appellant’s counsel, and in the other instance the argument regarded as objectionable was withdrawn.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.