Butler v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Butler v. State

91 S.W. 794, 49 Tex. Crim. 234, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 26

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 24, 1906

DocketNo. 3318.

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.W. 794 (Butler 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

Butler v. State, 91 S.W. 794, 49 Tex. Crim. 234, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 26 (Tex. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

This conviction is for violating the local option law. There is no statement of facts in the record. Appellant insists the case should be reversed because the caption of the charge reads: “The State of Texas v. L. C. Cole,” instead of “Cy Butler.” L. C. Cole was the prosecuting witness, and to whom appellant is alleged to have sold the intoxicant. In the body of the charge the word “defern^ ant” is used, and the name of L. C. Cole is given as the party to whom the intoxicant was sold. There is nothing in the charge of the court to have mislead the jury in the particular complained of, and we are of opinion that the clerical error of placing L. C. Cole instead of Cy Butler’s name at the beginning of the charge did not injure defendant in any way. The defendant was Cy Butler, and the jury evidently understood such to be the case. Ho error is manifest in this record requiring a reversal, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BROOKS, Judge.

This conviction is for violating the local option law. There is no statement of facts in the record. Appellant insists the case should be reversed because the caption of the charge reads: “The State of Texas v. L. C. Cole,” instead of “Cy Butler.” L. C. Cole was the prosecuting witness, and to whom appellant is alleged to have sold the intoxicant. In the body of the charge the word “defern^ ant” is used, and the name of L. C. Cole is given as the party to whom the intoxicant was sold. There is nothing in the charge of the court to have mislead the jury in the particular complained of, and we are of opinion that the clerical error of placing L. C. Cole instead of Cy Butler’s name at the beginning of the charge did not injure defendant in any way. The defendant was Cy Butler, and the jury evidently understood such to be the case. Ho error is manifest in this record requiring a reversal, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W. 794, 49 Tex. Crim. 234, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-state-texcrimapp-1906.