Fenley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Fenley v. State

239 S.W.2d 629, 156 Tex. Crim. 112, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1497

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 16, 1951

DocketNo. 25295

StatusPublished

This text of 239 S.W.2d 629 (Fenley 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

Fenley v. State, 239 S.W.2d 629, 156 Tex. Crim. 112, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1497 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of liquor without a permit; the punishment, a fine of $100 and thirty days’ confinement in jail.

Appellant was a porter at the Roosevelt Hotel in Amarillo. An agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board purchased a half pint of whiskey from him. Appellant did not testify.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of the failure of the trial court to instruct a verdict of not guilty on the grounds that the. state failed to prove that appellant did not have a permit to sell whiskey on the day charged in the complaint. The supervisor of the Texas Liquor Control Board for the area was asked to examine his records and tell the jury whether the appellant had a permit on the day charged. His answer was that appellant does not have a permit. We feel that since question was specific as to the date even though the answer was in the present tense, it was in reply to the question fixing the date and was, therefore, sufficient.

Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the reading to the jury of a portion of the testimony of one Dudley who had testified [113]*113against appellant in a former trial. We feel that appellant waived any complaint he may have had to this testimony when he made an issue of what Dudley’s testimony had been on the former trial. Since the issue was raised by appellant, the best evidence was the stenographer’s notes taken at the former trial.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of liquor without a permit; the punishment, a fine of $100 and thirty days’ confinement in jail.

Appellant was a porter at the Roosevelt Hotel in Amarillo. An agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board purchased a half pint of whiskey from him. Appellant did not testify.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of the failure of the trial court to instruct a verdict of not guilty on the grounds that the. state failed to prove that appellant did not have a permit to sell whiskey on the day charged in the complaint. The supervisor of the Texas Liquor Control Board for the area was asked to examine his records and tell the jury whether the appellant had a permit on the day charged. His answer was that appellant does not have a permit. We feel that since question was specific as to the date even though the answer was in the present tense, it was in reply to the question fixing the date and was, therefore, sufficient.

Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the reading to the jury of a portion of the testimony of one Dudley who had testified [113]*113against appellant in a former trial. We feel that appellant waived any complaint he may have had to this testimony when he made an issue of what Dudley’s testimony had been on the former trial. Since the issue was raised by appellant, the best evidence was the stenographer’s notes taken at the former trial.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.W.2d 629, 156 Tex. Crim. 112, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenley-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.