Case Name: Steven Martinez v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1960-03-09
Citations: 169 Tex. Crim. 151
Docket Number: No. 31,577
Parties: Steven Martinez v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
Steven Martinez v. State
No. 31,577.
March 9, 1960
W. F. Leigh, Pecos, (Court-Appointed) for appellant.
Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is passing as true a forged instrument; the punishment, two years.
In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary other than to observe that appellant did not testify in his own behalf or place his reputation in issue.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor referred to appellant as a thug, a thief and a vagrant. There was nothing in the record to support such argument, and the bill so certifies. In fact, the record shows that appellant was employed chopping cotton at the time charged in the indictment. We have concluded that the argument was so obviously harmful, prejudicial and outside the record as to call for a reversal of this conviction. Hilson v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. Rep. 550, 258 S. W. 826; McGrew v. State, 140 Tex. Cr. Rep. 77, 143 S. W. 2d 946; and Clark v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. Rep. 526, 244 S. W. 2d 218.
It is so ordered.