Moreno v. State

Affirming the judgment for a violation of the local option law, my Brethren held that the mere fact that the liquid purchased was “beer” judicially informs them that said “beer” was an intoxicant, and therefore the evidence sustains the conviction. I have heretofore understood the law to be otherwise when the evidence showed that the intoxicating liquor alleged to be sold in violation of the local option or prohibition law was a malt liquor, or even when the witnesses called it “beer” or “lager beer.” The Constitution, art. 16, § 20, only prohibits the sale of “intoxicating liquors” where the…