Laury v. State

508 S.W.2d 856, 1974 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1674
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 8, 1974
DocketNo. 48423
StatusPublished

This text of 508 S.W.2d 856 (Laury 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
Laury v. State, 508 S.W.2d 856, 1974 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1674 (Tex. 1974).

Opinion

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of unlawfully selling beer in a dry area as proscribed by Art. 666-4(b), Vernon’s Ann., of the Liquor Control Act. Punishment was assessed at thirty (30) days in jail.

Neither the complaint nor the information alleges the name of the purchaser of the beer. The content of the allegation is only that appellant “did then and there unlawfully sell an alcoholic beverage, to-wit: beer . . . . ” Under Arts. 21.12 and 21.23, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., in order “to charge an unlawful sale, it is necessary to name the purchaser.”

The only exception to this requirement is that such allegation is not necessary where the name of the purchaser is unknown, but in such event the pleading must so allege. Barnett v. State, 156 Tex. Cr.R. 396, 242 S.W.2d 885 (1951).

Since the name of the purchaser is not alleged, the information is fatally defective. Barnett v. State, supra; Wilson v. [857]*857State, 242 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Cr.App.1951); Keeton v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 264 S. W.2d 737 (1954). This rule has also been applied to cases involving sales of goods other than alcoholic beverages. See e. g. Christa v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 464, 351 S. W.2d 221 (1961); Treadgill v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 292 S.W.2d 121 (1956) (both sales of fireworks) ; Poston v. State, 296 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1957) (sale of falsely labelled agricultural seed); and King v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 453, 286 S. W.2d 422 (1956) (sale of falsely labelled feedstuff).

The information being fatally defective, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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

Related

Keeton v. State
264 S.W.2d 737 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1954)
King v. State
286 S.W.2d 422 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Barnett v. State
242 S.W.2d 885 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Keeton v. State
264 S.W.2d 737 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Christa v. State
351 S.W.2d 221 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Treadgill v. State
292 S.W.2d 121 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Poston v. State
296 S.W.2d 542 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
508 S.W.2d 856, 1974 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laury-v-state-texcrimapp-1974.