Rich v. State

OPINION

ODOM, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of murder; punishment was assessed at life.

In his first two grounds of error appellant complains of the State’s cross-examination of his character witnesses. No objections to the questions were made during the course of the cross-examination, and motion for mistrial was first made after the testimony was closed. This was too late, since an objection raised at the first opportunity, if sustained, could have prevented over ninety percent of the matter now complained of from having occurred. Nothing is presented for review.

Appellant next contends the…