Lummus v. State

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The. appellant challenges the correctness of the holding in our original opinion that the complained of argument “reveals an appeal for a strict enforcement of the law and presents no error.”

While we do not care to place our stamp of approval upon the argument, we remain convinced that in view of the objection made and the court’s ruling, the complained of remarks are not ground for reversal.

The ground of objection was “He is trying to inject sex into this thing.” The objection was sustained.

*348The county attorney then stated: “I am…