
    UTLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 11067.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 23, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 4,1928.
    Criminal law <8=>li7l(6) — State’s attorney’s argument that defendant, marrying before-trial and given lowest penalty, could not hide behind wife’s skirts, held not prejudicial error.
    In prosecution for burglary, argument of state’s attorney that defendant, who had married subsequent to indictment but prior to trial, could not hide behind skirts of his wife and that men hid behind the skirts of their wives in time of war and evaded draft, was not prejudicial error, where evidence amply supported conviction and lowest penalty was assessed.
    Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
    L. W. Utley was convicted for burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lockhart & Garrard, of Lubbock, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The evidence seems amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. The complaint made, based on alleged improper argument of the state’s attorney, cannot be sustained. It appears from the record that subsequent to his indictment herein, but prior to his trial, appellant married. His wife was in the courtroom at the time of trial. Reference to the marriage and to his wife was made by appellant’s attorney in his argument. In his closing argument the state’s attorney said, in substance, that appellant could not hide behind the skirts of his wife; that men had hid behind the skirts of their wives in times of war and evaded draft, etc. Where the evidence is plain, showing the guilt of.the accused, and the lowest penalty is awarded him, this court will not be inclined to reverse for argument which does not appear to have resulted in any prejudice to the accused.

The judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant presents only the contention that we erred in what we said relative to the argument of the district attorney. We see no necessity for multiplying words. The evidence was plain; the conclusion of guilt inevitable; the lowest penalty awarded. We see no possible ground for holding that the argument complained of prejudiced the rights of the accused.

The motion is overruled.  