Scott v. State
This text of 424 S.W.2d 641 (Scott v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
The offense is burglary with two prior non-capital felony convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.
[642]*642Appellant’s attorney on appeal asserts as ground of error # 1 that the trial court erred in admitting fingerprint comparison testimony. No objection was interposed at the time the identification officer testified, so nothing is presented for review. Barfield v. State, 43 S.W.2d 106; McCue v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 137, 170 S.W. 280; Bonds v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 408, 160 S.W. 100; and Coleman v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 150 S.W. 1177. See also Robles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 729.
He next contends that the court erred in his charge. No objections were presented to the trial court, and therefore, likewise, nothing is presented for review.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
424 S.W.2d 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-texcrimapp-1968.