Court Opinion

ID: 9673987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:21:34.783468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.101363
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
The very diligent attorneys representing appellant have filed a motion for rehearing and presented oral argument in his behalf.
Three of the four questions presented in this motion were treated in the original opinion. The question relating to the argument of the district attorney was not discussed in the opinion because it was not then and is not now considered of importance.
In his closing argument the district attorney referred to the prosecuting witness as representative of every innocent pure woman in Taylor County who did not know the accused. This *253brought no new fact before the jury. It was not an argument with any force. We see nothing inflammatory about it. It was merely making a speech. The cautious trial judge instructed the jury not to consider it. The fact that the trial judge did this is no evidence of the harmful effect of the argument. It merely pacified, as far as it might, the complaining attorneys.
It is neither possible nor advisable to write on every question brought forward on appeal and it is not the custom to do so unless the question might be viewed with some importance.
The entire record in this case was carefully considered on original submission and we remain of the opinion that proper disposition was made of the case. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.