Enriquez v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The State’s testimony was, after proving the several orders of the Commissioners’ Court with reference to said election, etc., that the alleged purchaser bought a bottle of whisky from the defendant about the 6th of March, 1910, and paid $1.50 therefor; and that he had purchased intoxicating liquors from the defendant five or six times. The defendant denied such sale of intoxicating liquors to prosecutor.
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of selling whisky in violation of the statute under an election held since the passage of the felony statute.
1. An attack is made upon the indictment because it does not allege the date upon which the election was held putting local option into effect. Under the decisions of this court, this objection is not well taken. See Wade v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 608.
2. It is suggested in motion for new trial that the court misdirected the jury as to the law and the penalty for its violation in that the court instructed the jury that in case they…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lewis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Wade v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Hood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
3Cited by9 opinions
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Meyer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Nobles v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Sandaval v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.