
    WALKER v. STATE.
    (No. 10448.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 10, 1926.)
    1. Witnesses <©=>414(I) — Evidence of witness’ good reputation for veracity held- inadmissible to rebut defendant’s denial of conduct attributed to him by such witness.
    Evidence of prosecuting witness’ good reputation for truth and veracity held inadmissible merely to' rebut defendant’s denial of acts and conduct attributed to him by such witness.
    2. Criminal law <§=724(l) — Prosecutor’s argument as to accused’s looks held abusive.
    State’s attorney’s argument, “Did you ever see a more suitable subject to send to the penitentiary? * * * Just look at that black stiff-legged brute. Did you ever see a worse looking animal in ypur life?” held reversible error as personally abusing defendant.
    3. Criminal law &s*720/s — Prosecutor’s argument as to his belief in guilt of accused held erroneous.
    State’s attorney’s argument that he never took a complaint unless he believed witnesses, and that accused should he sent to penitentiary because he was a dangerous character, held reversible error as injecting into the argument personal opinion of the prosecutor aside from the evidence.
    Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; J. M. Melson, Judge.
    Will Walker was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Reversed, and remanded.
    L. L. James, of Greenville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Dyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of Hunt county of robbery; punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

Mary Murrell was the alleged injured party and testified that appellant, holding a pair of scissors in a threatening position, told her he wanted some money and if she did not give it to him he would kill her, and that he caught hold of her and had the scissors elevated above her head in a threatening position. She said that through fear of him and because of his conduct she gave him $25 in money. She further testified that appellant, who was a roomer at her house, then made her go to bed with him and spend the night in his bed.

Appellant testified in his own behalf denying specifically the acts and conduct attributed to him by Mary Murrell, and asserted that she voluntarily gave him the money and occupied his bed. The state in rebuttal called a number of witnesses who testified, over objection, to the good reputation for truth and veracity of Mary Murrell. Appellant complains of this action of the court in bills of exception, reserving complaint in-each instance. The learned trial judge fell into error in this regard. The mere fact that the defense testimony controverts that of the state does not authorize the state to bolster up its witness by proving her good reputation for truth and veracity. In some way other than as above referred to, the defense must have impeached the state witness sought to be supported. Britt v. State, 21 Tex. App. 221, 17 S. W. 255; McGrath v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 423, 34 S. W. 127, 941; Payne v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 293, 50 S. W. 363. For other authorities see section 184, Branch’s Annotated P. C.

This court dislikes- to express criticism of arguments made on either side. In this case appellant complains by a number of bills of exception of argument made on behalf of the state. It is set out by the different bills of exception that the following language was used by the state’s attorney:

“I would not take a complaint where I did not think the person was guilty. I never have taken a complaint where I questioned the testimony of the witness.”

And again:

“I believe the defendant in this case ought to be sent to the penitentiary, for I believe he is a dangerous character.”

And further:

“This defendant has been to the penitentiary-once, and he is just homesick. He wants to go-back home; and did you ever see a more suitable subject to send to the penitentiary? Just look at him, gentlemen. Just look at that black stiff-legged brute, did you ever see a. worse looking animal in your life?”

And further on:

“Are" you going to'let James, this lawyer from Cooper, come down here and tell us how to run our courts down here in Hunt county; this lawyer that said all women were crooked?”

Comment on the part of this court is hardly necessary to make plain the objection that part of this argument subverts the rule against the injection into the argument of the purely personal opinion of the prosecutor aside from discussion of testimony that the accused is guilty; also, that it evidences personal abuse of the helpless defendant, who must sit and listen to personal invectives, having no remedy except to appeal to the trial court and eventually to this court.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remandéd. 
      <§^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     