¶1The offense is murder; the punishment, five years.
¶2The killing occurred near Spur, in Dickens County. Trial was in Lubbock County, venue having been changed by the court on his own motion.
¶3The jury rejected appellant’s claim of self-defense and his effort to reduce the killing to murder without malice by testimony that his wife had just informed him that deceased had sexual relations with her the previous night. The jury also denied his application for suspended sentence.
¶4The facts, viewed from the State’s standpoint, show an unjustified voluntary killing, appellant having advanced on the deceased with a loaded shot gun; followed the deceased as he drove away with the shot gun he had wrested from appellant; fired at the deceased on the streets of Spur, and finally overtook and killed him by shooting him in the head with a high powered rifle equipped with a telescope sight.
¶5Two propositions are presented in appellant’s brief, the first relating to Bill of Exception No. 1.
¶6By this proposition appellant claims material prejudicial error in the voir dire examination of prospective jurors, and the overruling of some of his challenges for cause.
¶7The voir dire examination of the jury panel .is not before us, and the bill of exception nowhere contains a certification by the court that the matters complained of and made the basis of the bill occurred.
¶8As we read Bill of Exception No. 1, it merely recites that during the selection of the jury the defendant made a motion for mistrial; sets out the motion and recites that it was overruled and the defendant excepted.
¶9Containing only allegations of the appellant, not verified as facts by the trial judge, Bill of Exception No. 1 presents no reversible error. Mayse v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 360, 242 S.W.2d 371; Cox v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 51, 246 S.W.2d 474; Huskey v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 625, 246 S.W.2d 636; Veasey v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 170, 247 S.W.2d 255; Hanna v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 2, 259 S.W.2d 570; Mercer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 290 S.W.2d 248; Stephen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 293 S.W.2d 789.
¶10Appellant’s second and remaining proposition relates to argument.
¶11Bill of Exception No. 4 sets out certain remarks made in the State’s opening argument, and a portion of the closing argument, and shows that objection was offered and motion for mistrial made at the closing of argument.
¶12The remarks complained of were to the effect that the defendant had not offered any witness to testify that his reputation as a peaceful and law abiding citizen was good, and apparently he could not, and that it should be “mighty significant” that certain State witnesses had the courage to testify that his reputation was bad “if any mention is made of any suspended sentence in this case.”
¶13In Martin v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 174, 54 S.W.2d 812, cited by appellant, the prosecutor, in his argument, made a misstatement of the law when he said that the defendant was not entitled to a suspended sentence unless he had proved a good reputation.
¶14The Martin case does not support appellant’s claim of error.
¶15The arguments set out in the bill reflect that the jury was told that they could suspend the sentence if the punishment they assessed did not exceed five years.
¶16*303Appellant placed his reputation in issue by the filing of an application for suspended sentence. A number of witnesses testified that his reputation as a peaceful and law abiding citizen was bad. They were not cross-examined on that point and no character witness was called by the defense.
¶17It was proper, under these facts, for the attorney representing the State to direct the jury’s attention to the evidence showing the bad reputation of the defendant, and to point out the purpose for which the testimony was admissible. Burnett v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 280 S.W.2d 260; Taylor v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 124, 247 S.W.2d 127.
¶18The judgment is affirmed.
¶19Opinion approved by the Court.