Larned v. State
This text of 55 S.W. 826 (Larned 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.
Opinion
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law. The State proved, two different and distinct transactions, occurring on different days. When the State closed its testimony, appellant moved the court to require the prosecution to elect upon which transaction a conviction would be sought. This was refused. This motion was again renewed after appellant had closed his testimony, and the court again refused to require the. State to elect. This ‘was erroneous. Batchelor v. State, ante, p. 501, and authorities therein cited. The other questions raised are without merit. For the reason indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
55 S.W. 826, 41 Tex. Crim. 509, 1900 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larned-v-state-texcrimapp-1900.