Harwell v. State
Decision Date | 15 February 1911 |
Citation | 134 S.W. 701 |
Parties | HARWELL v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Johnson County Court; J. B. Haynes, Judge.
Jim Harwell appeals from a conviction. Reversed and remanded.
Phillips & Bledsoe, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted for violating the local option law.
The state's evidence shows that the alleged purchaser, T. M. Pettigrew, stated that he got a pint of whisky from appellant, for which he paid him 75 cents. This was emphatically denied by appellant; he testifying that he never sold Pettigrew any whisky in his life. Several bills of exception were taken to the argument of the county attorney, and special instructions were requested by counsel for appellant to withdraw these remarks from the jury, with further instructions not to consider the same. These were refused by the court.
The first bill of exception recites that the county attorney in his closing argument said: The second bill recites that in the closing argument the county attorney said: The third bill recites that the county attorney used the following language: Another bill recites that while the county attorney was addressing the jury he said: "We can't enforce the law, if the jury will go out here and turn bootleggers like defendant loose in such cases as this; and now, if you want bootleggers to run riot here, go out and turn this one loose." Another bill recites that the county attorney said: "Gentlemen of the jury, I declare to you Jim Harwell never did a decent act...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall v. State
...of the court, and such is the rule, I think, the court has been following since he has been a member of the court. See Harwell v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 233, 134 S. W. 701; Clements v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 161, 134 S. W. 728; Coffman v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 95, 136 S. W. 779; Paris v. Stat......
-
Seng v. State
...... reference is made. The prosecuting attorney is not justified. in expressing his opinion of the defendant's guilt, or. stating as a fact anything except what the evidence tends to. prove, or which he expects to prove, in good faith. (State v. Clark, 131 N.W. 369; Harwell v. State, 134 S.W. 701; Brown v. State, 54 So. 305; Ross v. State, 133 S.W. 688; State v. Jones, 53 So. 559; State v. McPherson, 131 N.W. 645; Harris v. State, 137 S.W. 698; People v. Pang Sui Lin, 114 P. 582.) (Counsel also contended that. the court erred in refusing to give certain ......
-
Roberts v. State
...the point are collected by Mr. Branch in section 366 of Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C. Some of the more recent cases are Harwell v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 233, 134 S. W. 701; Stroehmer v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 90, 272 S. W. 163; Newton v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 497, 275 S. W. 1055 and Nichols v. ......
-
Johnson v. State
...586, 148 S.W. 328; Paris v. State, 62 Tex. Cr.R. 354, 137 S.W. 698; Grimes v. State, 64 Tex.Cr.R. 64, 141 S.W. 261; Harwell v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 233, 134 S.W. 701; Tillery v. State, 24 Tex.App. 251, 5 S.W. 842, 5 Am.St.Rep. We pretermit a discussion at this time of the appellant's content......