¶1The offense is murder; the punishment, 7 years.
¶2Our two prior opinions are withdrawn, and the following is substituted in lieu thereof. In view of our disposition of the case, the facts will not be set forth. We overrule appellant’s contention that the charge on accident as given by the court was erroneous and point out that where, as in this case, the defense is accident, there is no occasion to charge on negligent homicide. Beasley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 346 S.W.2d 123, and Simmons v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 170 S.W.2d 742.
¶3Our attention has now been directed to two portions of the argument of the prosecutor contained in the statement of facts. At one juncture, the prosecutor said, “He (appellant’s son) knew his father well enough to know he had murdered this woman.”
¶4The objection that such constituted un-sworn testimony of the prosecutor was overruled.
¶5Thereafter, the prosecutor said, “He (appellant’s son) knew what he (appellant) was capable of doing. He knew he was a dangerous and violent person.”
¶6The same objection was made and overruled.
¶7In such ruling, the court was clearly in error, and such error requires a reversal of this conviction.
¶8The second motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set *868aside, and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.