Langford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Langford v. State

80 S.W.2d 972, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 673

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 27, 1935

DocketNo. 17479

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.W.2d 972 (Langford 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

Langford v. State, 80 S.W.2d 972, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 673 (Tex. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment in this case contained two counts. The second count alone was submitted to the jury. Said count charges as follows : “ * * * Langford did then and there unlawfully possess equipment for the manufacture of liquor, said equipment being then and there capable of producing intoxication.” The indictment is manifestly insufficient. It is not enough to say that “said [973]*973equipment being then, and there capable of producing intoxication.” If the indictment had stated that appellant possessed equipment for the manufacture of liquor capable of producing intoxication, this would have been bad under the case of Offield v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 882.

For the reasons stated, the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment in this case contained two counts. The second count alone was submitted to the jury. Said count charges as follows : “ * * * Langford did then and there unlawfully possess equipment for the manufacture of liquor, said equipment being then and there capable of producing intoxication.” The indictment is manifestly insufficient. It is not enough to say that “said [973]*973equipment being then, and there capable of producing intoxication.” If the indictment had stated that appellant possessed equipment for the manufacture of liquor capable of producing intoxication, this would have been bad under the case of Offield v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 882.

For the reasons stated, the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.W.2d 972, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langford-v-state-texcrimapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack