¶1The conviction is under Art. 725c, V.A. P.C., for unlawfully being under the influence of a narcotic drug; the punishment, three years in the penitentiary.
¶2In view of our disposition of the case, a recitation of the facts is unnecessary other than to observe that appellant was arrested in the city of Houston under a warrant is*614sued out of Justice Court, Precinct No. 1, of Harris County, upon a complaint filed in said court, charging him with violation of the narcotic laws. Following his arrest, appellant was taken to the police department, where he was interviewed and observed by state narcotics officer, R. E. Scholl.
¶3Officer Scholl, called as a witness by the state, described certain needle marks on appellant’s arm, his physical appearance, and demeanor, and, being qualified as an expert, expressed his opinion that at such time he was under the influence of a narcotic drug.
¶4Appellant timely objected to the testimony on the ground that a legal arrest had not been shown. Upon the state’s assurance that such arrest would be shown, his objections were by the court overruled.
¶5At the conclusion of the testimony when it was shown that the warrant issued for appellant’s arrest was invalid — not having been signed by the magistrate issuing the same, as required by Art. 219, V.A.C.C.P., appellant moved for a mistrial. The motion was refused but at the same time the court held the arrest of appellant unauthorized and orally instructed the jury not to consider Officer Scholl’s testimony insofar as it related to a physical examination of appellant. Later in his charge, the court by an instruction withdrew from the jury’s consideration any testimony in the case relative to a physical examination or observation of appellant while in custody, except the testimony of Chemist Crawford, who had taken a specimen of urine from him.
¶6Under the record, the court should have granted a mistrial.
¶7As heretofore shown, Officer Scholl’s testimony was admitted by the court upon the assurance of state’s counsel that a legal arrest would be shown. This the state failed to show.
¶8Officer Scholl’s testimony consists of 93 pages of the 156-page statement of facts. In his testimony the officer presented to the jury a description of appellant’s appearance while in unlawful custody and also expressed his opinion, based upon his observation of appellant, that at such time he was under the influence of a narcotic drug.
¶9We are not here dealing with a court’s instruction to disregard one improper question and answer of a witness, but an instruction to disregard a large portion of the testimony of a witness which was prejudicial to the appellant.
¶10Appellant was assessed the maximum punishment under Art. 725c, V.A.P.C.
¶11The officer’s testimony was of such nature that the error in its admission could not be cured by the court’s instruction. Music v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 522, 121 S.W.2d 606; Barker v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 318, 299 S.W.2d 142; Hicks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 355 S.W.2d 189.
¶12Upon another trial, under similar facts, the three photographs of appellant showing needle marks on his arm, which were introduced in evidence by the state, should not be admitted, as it appears that they were made of him while he was under unlawful arrest and detention. Art. 727a, V.A.C.C.P.
¶13The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
¶14Opinion approved by the Court.