Bell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bell v. State

228 S.W. 232, 88 Tex. Crim. 507, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 293

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 23, 1921

DocketNo. 6116.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 228 S.W. 232 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. State, 228 S.W. 232, 88 Tex. Crim. 507, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 293 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Camp County of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the Dean Law, Act Second Called Session Thirty-Sixth Legislature, page 228, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

There is no statement of facts in the record, and but one question is here presented. In negativing the statutory exceptions the indictment uses the conjunction “and” between the words scientific and sacramental, and by motion to quash appellant urged that this rendered the indictment void. We do not think so. It is provided by our Code Criminal Procedure, Article 476 that an indictment shall not be held insufficient by reason of any defect or imperfection of form which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant. It has been' held in many cases which might be cited, that the word “and” and the word “or” may often be used interchangeably. Words and Phrases.' Volume 1. Ex parte Meckel, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 120, 220 S. W. Rep., 81. As we view it the insertion of the word “and” in the indictment in the place of the word “or” as same is used in the statute in enumerating the exceptions, only places an additional burden on the State, which in such case would have to show that accused not only sold intoxicating liquor but that he sold it under none of the exceptions named. We do not think this would prejudice any substantial right of the defendant. Under our decisions the burden is not on the defendant to prove that the sale was made under some one of the named exceptions and that he is therefore not guilty, but is on the State to prove that it was not under any of them. The question as to the character or quantity of proof required is one for the jury in each individual case. The Byrd case, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 242, 182 S. W. Rep., 360, is the only authority cited by appellant, and is not in point as same comes under the well settled law of decisions wherein the prosecutions were for failures or omissions to perform some duty.

Finding no error in the record the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Camp County of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the Dean Law, Act Second Called Session Thirty-Sixth Legislature, page 228, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

There is no statement of facts in the record, and but one question is here presented. In negativing the statutory exceptions the indictment uses the conjunction “and” between the words scientific and sacramental, and by motion to quash appellant urged that this rendered the indictment void. We do not think so. It is provided by our Code Criminal Procedure, Article 476 that an indictment shall not be held insufficient by reason of any defect or imperfection of form which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant. It has been' held in many cases which might be cited, that the word “and” and the word “or” may often be used interchangeably. Words and Phrases.' Volume 1. Ex parte Meckel, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 120, 220 S. W. Rep., 81. As we view it the insertion of the word “and” in the indictment in the place of the word “or” as same is used in the statute in enumerating the exceptions, only places an additional burden on the State, which in such case would have to show that accused not only sold intoxicating liquor but that he sold it under none of the exceptions named. We do not think this would prejudice any substantial right of the defendant. Under our decisions the burden is not on the defendant to prove that the sale was made under some one of the named exceptions and that he is therefore not guilty, but is on the State to prove that it was not under any of them. The question as to the character or quantity of proof required is one for the jury in each individual case. The Byrd case, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 242, 182 S. W. Rep., 360, is the only authority cited by appellant, and is not in point as same comes under the well settled law of decisions wherein the prosecutions were for failures or omissions to perform some duty.

Finding no error in the record the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.W. 232, 88 Tex. Crim. 507, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-texcrimapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack