
    ROWE v. STATE.
    (No. 9335.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 28, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <©=3-730(13) — Remarks of district attorney held not error, where- objection was sustained and jury directed to disregard' them.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, remark of district attorney in argument to jury that they, could not afford to turn defendant loose, because he had stolen cars all over country, <held not error, where objection thereto was sustained, and jury instructed not to consider remarks, and especially so in view of qualifications by court, stating district attorney was answering remarks made by counsel for accused.
    2. Criminal law <©=409 — Evidence held sufficient to warrant jury in finding that accused stole automobile.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, statement of accused while in jail that he had stolen car and sold it, and testimony that it was later recovered from party to whom accused sold it with numbers altered, held sufficient to warrant jury in believing, accused stole automobile.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Shackelford County; W. R. Ely, Judge.
    S. E. Rowe was convicted of theft of an automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. P. Rogers, of Lamesa, and W. J. Cunningham, of Abilene, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat.Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Shackelford county for the offense of theft of an automobile, and his punishment assessed at two years’ con.-finement in the penitentiary.

The record contains but one bill of exception, and this was taken to the following argument of the district attorney:

“Gentlemen of the jury, you cannot afford to turn this defendant loose, because he has stolen cars all over the country.”

The bill shows that appellant’s objection was sustained by the court, and the court verbally instructed the jury not to consider said remarks, and the record fails to disclose that appellant offered any charge in writing instructing the jury not to consider these remarks. The court qualifies the bill by further stating that the district attorney was answering the statement of counsel for -appellant, and the remarks made by state’s counsel were invited by counsel for appellant. The appellant accepted this bill of exceptions, with the court’s qualification as above stated attached thereto, and is bound by the same. In this state of the record, we perceive no reversible error in regard to this matter.

In his brief, appellant contends that he cannot be legally convicted on his purported confession, without other facts and circumstances of corroboration. A careful examination of the statement of facts fully convinces us that appellant’s statement, made while in jail to the prosecuting witness, was cogently and substantially corroborated by other testimony in the record. The statement of facts shows that the car was stolen on or about the 19th day of December, 1922, in Albany, Shackelford county, Tex., and that thereafter the appellant, while in jail at Graham, told the prosecuting witness that he had sold the car to John Hook, who lives two miles east of Lockhart, in Caldwell county, and the prosecuting witness further testified that he went to Lockhart, and conferred with the sheriff, and found the ear, and that Mr. Hook drove it into town and turned it over to him, and when he found this car the highway numbers that were on the car when it was taken from his possession were not then on it, and that the motor number had been changed. The witness Hook testified that appellant sold him this ear at Lockhart in January, 1923. We think this evidence is amply sufficient to warrant the jury iu believing that appellant stole this car in Albany in December, 1922, and sold it in Lockhart in January, 1923.

The evidence being amply sufficient to support the verdict, and there being no errors manifested by the record, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      <§=s>Eor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     