Rozier v. State

234 S.W. 666, 90 Tex. Crim. 337, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 135
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided November 9, 1921·No. No. 6402.·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction was for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. Punishment one year in penitentiary.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record. Appellant’s motion to quash the indictment because our law is in conflict with the Federal law upon the subject of intoxicating liquor was properly overruled. Franklin v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 342, 230 S. W. Rep., 692; Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 529, 228 S. W. Rep., 199.

Appellant urges in his motion for new trial that the evidence shows he was acting under duress in his connection with the whisky, and therefore this conviction should be set aside. We fail to discover any such duress as will excuse a party for violating the law. Art. 44, Vernon’s P. C.; Burton v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 201, 101 S. W. Rep., 226.

The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Rozier v. State, 234 S.W. 666, 90 Tex. Crim. 337, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 135 (Tex. 1921).

234 S.W. 666 (Rozier v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bigley v. State
865 S.W.2d 26 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Samaras v. State
250 S.W. 685 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Hooper v. State
250 S.W. 694 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Brown v. State
242 S.W. 218 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Staton v. State
239 S.W. 947 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Epps v. State
238 S.W. 652 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Cook v. State
236 S.W. 723 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)