Legal Opinion

Copeland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 11, 1922No. 6994PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor with a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

It is urged that the indictment is defective in omitting to allege that the manufacture was for the “purpose of sale.” Several special * charges based upon the same theory were requested and refused. There was no error in declining to quash the indictment and in refusing the requested instructions. The contention has been decided adversely to appellant in Ex parte Mitchum, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 62, 237 S. W. Rep., 936; Stringer v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 46, 241 S. W.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Crowley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
  2. Ex Parte MitchumCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
  3. Stringer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. RhineCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2009
  2. Nichols v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
  3. Harrison v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
  4. Bramlett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Welchek v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API