Case Name: COTTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-03-07
Citations: 250 S.W. 1026
Docket Number: No. 7101
Parties: COTTON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 250
Pages: 1026–1027

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.
<&»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes