Galindo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Galindo v. State

183 S.W. 886

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 8, 1916

DocketNo. 3982

StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.W. 886 (Galindo 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

Galindo v. State, 183 S.W. 886 (Tex. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for the violation of the local option liquor prohibition law, a felony, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.

[1, 2] There is neither a bill of exceptions [887]*887nor a statement of facts in the record. The only question, in the absence of these, which can be reviewed is appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment, wherein he contends that the indictment is fatally defective, in that the liquor alleged to have been sold by appellant was beer, contending that in addition to such allegation, it is necessary to allege that beer was an intoxicating liquor. This question has been expressly decided against appellant in Moreno v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 660, 143 S. W. 156, Ann. Cas. 19140, 863. Hence the court did not err in overruling his motion.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for the violation of the local option liquor prohibition law, a felony, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.

[1, 2] There is neither a bill of exceptions [887]*887nor a statement of facts in the record. The only question, in the absence of these, which can be reviewed is appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment, wherein he contends that the indictment is fatally defective, in that the liquor alleged to have been sold by appellant was beer, contending that in addition to such allegation, it is necessary to allege that beer was an intoxicating liquor. This question has been expressly decided against appellant in Moreno v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 660, 143 S. W. 156, Ann. Cas. 19140, 863. Hence the court did not err in overruling his motion.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.W. 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galindo-v-state-texcrimapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack