Odom v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Odom v. State

239 S.W. 1116, 91 Tex. Crim. 575, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 294

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 26, 1922

DocketNo. 6924.

StatusPublished

This text of 239 S.W. 1116 (Odom 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

Odom v. State, 239 S.W. 1116, 91 Tex. Crim. 575, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 294 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

—Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging the possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year confinement in the penitentiary.

The prosecution was begun under the law as it existed prior to the amendment of the 1st and 2d Called Sessions of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, page 233. By that amendment the possession of intoxicating liquor, to be a violation of the law, must be so possessed for the purpose of sale. Under many cases heretofore decided since the amendment in question this court has held that the indictment in the present form does not charge a violation of the present law.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

—Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging the possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year confinement in the penitentiary.

The prosecution was begun under the law as it existed prior to the amendment of the 1st and 2d Called Sessions of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, page 233. By that amendment the possession of intoxicating liquor, to be a violation of the law, must be so possessed for the purpose of sale. Under many cases heretofore decided since the amendment in question this court has held that the indictment in the present form does not charge a violation of the present law.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.W. 1116, 91 Tex. Crim. 575, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.