OPINION
The offense is robbery by assault with a prior conviction for an offense of the same nature alleged for enhancemеnt; the punishment, life.
The record reflects that two men robbed Nаt Johnson after he left a Dallas County cafe. Two witnesses idеntified the appellant as one of the men who followеd the victim out of the cafe and robbed him. Violen Elmo, Jr., 1 appellant’s co-defendant, *871 testified thаt he committed the robbery and that the appellant was nоt present.
Appellant’s ground of error number one is that the State, in violation of the Court’s earlier ruling granting his motion in limine, asked сertain questions which “obviously inferred a prior offense by aрpellant.” In his brief appellant cites two places in the record where he contends the prosecutor alluded to an extraneous offense while cross-examining defense witness. They are:
“PROSECUTOR: Do you remember encountering a man earlier in the evening by the name of Mr. George, do you recall thаt?
“VIOLEN ELMO: No, sir.
“PROSECUTOR: How about a fella about two weeks earlier named Slim, you and Robert Terry?
“VIOLEN ELMO: No.
“MR. WHITLEY (Attorney for appellant) : Your Honor, I objеct to that. This is inferring something that is no way relevant to this case аnd I would object to it.
“THE COURT: All right. Sustained.
“MR. WHITLEY: I’ll ask that the jury be instructed to disregard.
“THE COURT: The jury is to disrеgard it, not to consider it for any purpose.”
* * * * * *
“PROSECUTOR: Do you know a man named Slim?
“APPELLANT: No, sir.
“PROSECUTOR: You’ve never heard of him?
“APPELLANT: No, sir.
“MR. WHITLEY: Your Honor, we’ll hаve the same objection to this line of questioning. It has no relеvance to this case and no proper predicate, irrelevant.
“THE COURT: Sustained.”
Appellant does not suggest how the abovе constituted a violation of the court’s order or in what manner an extraneous offense is implied. We further note that in eаch instance the court instructed the jury to disregard the remarks. An instruction to disregard will cure error except in extreme cаses where it appears that the question or evidencе is clearly calculated to inflame or prejudice the minds of the jury and is of such a character that the impression it сreates cannot be withdrawn from the jury. Guerra v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Appellant’s ground of error number two relates to his objeсtion to the court’s charge. The obj ection was:
“The defеndant objects and excepts to the Court’s failure to the сharge on the law of accomplice testimony.”
Apрellant contends that although the witness Violen Elmo, Jr. was called by the defense he was entitled to a charge on accomplice testimony under Article 38.14, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., since the State relied on his testimony. Elmo testified fully in appellant’s behalf. A chargе of the nature he suggests would have restricted and limited his own defensive testimony. The requested charge was properly ovеrruled.
Appellant’s ground of error three is that the proseсutor erred when he, in his argument, told the jury that the witness Alice May Brown was “taking her life in her hands” when she testified at the trial. The court promptly sustained the appellant’s objection and instructed thе jury to disregard the remarks. The argument was not shown to be made in bаd faith. The instruction was sufficient to remove any possible error. No error is shown.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Notes
.
Elmo’s conviction was affirmed in Elmo v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,