Carnes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Carnes v. State

111 S.W. 402, 53 Tex. Crim. 509, 1908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 268

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 13, 1908

DocketNo. 3719.

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.W. 402 (Carnes 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

Carnes v. State, 111 S.W. 402, 53 Tex. Crim. 509, 1908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 268 (Tex. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for violating the local option law.

The only question suggested for revision in this case is the want of sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. It is a matter of some doubt as to whether appellant was the man who sold the whisky, or that the transaction occurred at all. The State’s witness, however, finally identified the appellant positively as the man who sold him the whisky. Appellant’s testimony is well settled to the effect that he did not make the sale; was not present, had nothing to do with it; that at the time of the sale and on the evening of the alleged occurrence he and another party were going about the town making up a purse for a widow and her children who were in necessitous circumstances. Under our system of jurisprudence, the jury are the exclusive judges of the facts adduced on the trial, and the weight to be given the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, etc. We would hardly be justified in setting aside this verdict for want of sufficient testimony, as the jury saw proper to credit that in troduced by the State.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for violating the local option law.

The only question suggested for revision in this case is the want of sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. It is a matter of some doubt as to whether appellant was the man who sold the whisky, or that the transaction occurred at all. The State’s witness, however, finally identified the appellant positively as the man who sold him the whisky. Appellant’s testimony is well settled to the effect that he did not make the sale; was not present, had nothing to do with it; that at the time of the sale and on the evening of the alleged occurrence he and another party were going about the town making up a purse for a widow and her children who were in necessitous circumstances. Under our system of jurisprudence, the jury are the exclusive judges of the facts adduced on the trial, and the weight to be given the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, etc. We would hardly be justified in setting aside this verdict for want of sufficient testimony, as the jury saw proper to credit that in troduced by the State.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.W. 402, 53 Tex. Crim. 509, 1908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnes-v-state-texcrimapp-1908.