Carlson v. State

WHITHAM, Justice.

Appellant, George Frank Carlson, appeals his conviction for indecency with a child. We find no merit in any of appellant’s four grounds of error. Accordingly, we affirm.

In his first ground of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to misstate the law during voir dire. During voir dire the following exchange occurred between prosecutor, defense counsel and trial court:

[PROSECUTOR]: You’ve got constitutional rights to subpoena witnesses, or you’ve got the right to subpoena witnesses. If there’s somebody down here that this defendant…