Rachel v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Rachel v. State

261 S.W. 1118, 97 Tex. Crim. 403, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 336

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 7, 1924

DocketNo. 8235.

StatusPublished

This text of 261 S.W. 1118 (Rachel 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

Rachel v. State, 261 S.W. 1118, 97 Tex. Crim. 403, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 336 (Tex. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

No objections appear to have been urged to the charge of the court, and no exceptions reserved to any proceeding during the trial. The alleged purchaser testified positively to a sale of whisky by appellant, and the evidence of two officers who witnessed their conduct strongly supports the main State witness. Appellant denied making any sale of whisky, and if the jury had accepted his testimony and that of his witnesses as true, an acquittal would have followed; but the jury accepted the State’s evidence as reflecting the true state of facts, and it fully warrants the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

No objections appear to have been urged to the charge of the court, and no exceptions reserved to any proceeding during the trial. The alleged purchaser testified positively to a sale of whisky by appellant, and the evidence of two officers who witnessed their conduct strongly supports the main State witness. Appellant denied making any sale of whisky, and if the jury had accepted his testimony and that of his witnesses as true, an acquittal would have followed; but the jury accepted the State’s evidence as reflecting the true state of facts, and it fully warrants the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.W. 1118, 97 Tex. Crim. 403, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rachel-v-state-texcrimapp-1924.