Middlebrook v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Middlebrook v. State

387 S.W.2d 51

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 24, 1965

DocketNo. 37782

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 387 S.W.2d 51 (Middlebrook 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

Middlebrook v. State, 387 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. 1965).

Pincite

Opinions

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is unlawfully transporting beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

In view of the disposition of this cause, a recitation of the facts is deemed unnecessary.

It is axiomatic that every affirmative defense raised by the evidence shall be submitted to the jury in the court’s charge. The fact that the judge does not believe the accused’s defense does not alter his duty to submit the question to the jury for their decision. Schroeder v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 341 S.W.2d 450.

In the case at bar appellant was shown to have lived in Smith County all of his life and had never before been convicted for a violation of the liquor law. He testified that he acquired the beer in question lawfully in an area where its purchase was legal and was on a direct route to his home where he intended to keep the beer for his own personal use. That issue should have been submitted to the jury.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is unlawfully transporting beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

In view of the disposition of this cause, a recitation of the facts is deemed unnecessary.

It is axiomatic that every affirmative defense raised by the evidence shall be submitted to the jury in the court’s charge. The fact that the judge does not believe the accused’s defense does not alter his duty to submit the question to the jury for their decision. Schroeder v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 341 S.W.2d 450.

In the case at bar appellant was shown to have lived in Smith County all of his life and had never before been convicted for a violation of the liquor law. He testified that he acquired the beer in question lawfully in an area where its purchase was legal and was on a direct route to his home where he intended to keep the beer for his own personal use. That issue should have been submitted to the jury.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 S.W.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middlebrook-v-state-texcrimapp-1965.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack