Scott v. State

424 S.W.2d 641
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 6, 1968·No. No. 41113·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

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

Scott v. State, 424 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 1968).

424 S.W.2d 641 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Scott
485 S.W.2d 921 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)