Smith v. State

260 S.W. 571, 97 Tex. Crim. 287, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 288
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 90 Tex. Crim. 273
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided April 9, 1924·No. No. 8634.·Published

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for misdemeanor theft with a punishment of ten days in the county jail and a fine of $25.

*288 There were no objections to the court’s charge and the record is without a statement of facts. Only one bill of exceptions is found in the record. During the argument of the assistant district attorney he said:

“Prom the way she operated this defendant is a professional shoplifter. ’ ’

Objection was interposed to this argument because inflammatory and not supported by the evidence. In the absence of the facts proven it is impossible for us to appraise the worth of this bill. It appears that the prosecuting officer was stating his conclusion and without the facts we must assume that the conclusion was drawn from the evidence.

No error appearing from the record, and affirmance of the judgment is ordered.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith v. State, 260 S.W. 571, 97 Tex. Crim. 287, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 (Tex. 1924).

260 S.W. 571 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.