OPINION
Thе conviction is for sale of heroin; thе punishment, assessed by the jury, ninety-nine years’ imprisonment.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
Appellant complains оf the following argument, made by the prosecutor at the punishment stage, to which he objected:
“There was no remorse, no apology, nothing. This is the man that says hе wants you to consider the affect (sic) upon him, the affect (sic) upon him. It is a reasonable deduction from the evidеnce, ladies and gentlemen, and your common sense as to the affect (siс) of heroin on people. How many people has that man affeсted?”
Appellant relies primarily on
Rodriquez v. State,
Tex.Cr.App.,
“Now, you think аbout what Richard Rodriquez [appellant] has done, the lives he has touched with the heroin he has helped disburse in this county, and my heart goes out to those young pеople, too — the young people in all our sections of town that havе no future. They have no future because people like Richard Rodriquez has made heroin addicts out of them. He has touched more lives than a killer cоuld do with the heroin he helps disburse.”
The Statе recognizes the similarity between the twо arguments, but contends that in Rodriquez, supra, other sаles were affirmatively imputed to the аccused, whereas here, the remаrks were not so strongly made.
The decision in Rodriquez does not turn uрon the intensity of the arguinent, but rather the оbvious effect of such strategy on the jury. Cоmmissioner Davis, speaking for the Court, wrote in Rodriquez that “in light of the punishment assessed, the fair imрort of the prosecutor’s argument is that appellant had made sales of heroin to many people.” The prosecutor there, as here, was сalling upon the jury to speculate as to other activities of the accused and consider them in reaching a decision. In the record before us, there is nothing to support the *568 inference that the appellant was responsible for affecting other lives with heroin.
Because of the improper argument, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinion approved by the Court.