Case Name: E. C. Lee v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-11-17
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 156
Docket Number: No. 5962
Parties: E. C. Lee v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
E. C. Lee v. The State.
No. 5962.
Decided November 17, 1920.
1. —Simple Assault—General Reputation—Argument of Counsel.
The contention of appellant as reversible error that the prosecuting attorney remarked he could not comment in his argument upon the fact of defendant’s general reputation until the same was put in issue, is not tenable. Following Patterson v. State, 221 S. W. Rep., 597.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of simple assault the evidence, although conflicting, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable Hugh L. Small.
Appeal from a conviction of simple assault; penalty, a fine of five dollars.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Tarrant County, of the offense of simple assault, and his punishment fixed at a fine of five dollars.
Appellant's motion for a new trial complains that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence; and also of the fact that the prosecuting attorney was permitted to comment in his argument, upon the fact that the State could not attack the reputation of the appellant, under the law, until he put same in issue. This Court held in Patterson v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 95, 221 S. W. Rep., 597, that the argument of the prosecuting attorney, with reference to his failure to attack the defendant's reputation because the same was not permitted by law, was not ground for reversal.
We are unable to say from this record that there is no evidence upon which the jury might have predicated their verdict. The evidence for the State and for the accused is conflicting, but the jury have resolved this conflict of evidence against the appellant, and we are not disposed to disturb their finding.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.