Russell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Russell v. State

28 S.W.2d 138, 115 Tex. Crim. 608, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 606

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 23, 1930

DocketNo. 13291.

StatusPublished

This text of 28 S.W.2d 138 (Russell 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

Russell v. State, 28 S.W.2d 138, 115 Tex. Crim. 608, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 606 (Tex. 1930).

Pincite

Opinions

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The alleged purchaser, Moore, testified positively that on Saturday afternoon, April 6, 1929, he saw appellant in the town of O’Donnell and made arrangements to purchase some whisky which appellant delivered to him on the road after witness started home and for which appellant was paid two dollars; that witness broke the bottle containing the whisky when he was about to be apprehended by an officer a few minutes after buying it. Appellant and two witnesses gave evidence to the effect that at the time of the alleged sale he was in another county and did not return to O’Donnell until Sunday, the day after the sale is claimed to have occurred, The state introduced evidence of other parties than Moore that appellant was in O’Donnell on the Saturday in question.

The issue of alibi was properly submitted and the jury has decided it against appellant. We see no reason to disturb their finding.

The only bills of exception in the record complain that the trial court excluded evidence which appellant expected to elicit from the alleged purchaser on cross-examination. Each of the bills sets out the question to which objection was sustained, but neither of them *609 shows what the answer of the witness would have been. Manifestly the bills are incomplete. For authorities see Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., Sec. 212, page 136, Note 31, Art. 667; Vernon’s Ann. Cr. Statutes of Texas, C. C. P. Vol. 2, page 377.

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, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The alleged purchaser, Moore, testified positively that on Saturday afternoon, April 6, 1929, he saw appellant in the town of O’Donnell and made arrangements to purchase some whisky which appellant delivered to him on the road after witness started home and for which appellant was paid two dollars; that witness broke the bottle containing the whisky when he was about to be apprehended by an officer a few minutes after buying it. Appellant and two witnesses gave evidence to the effect that at the time of the alleged sale he was in another county and did not return to O’Donnell until Sunday, the day after the sale is claimed to have occurred, The state introduced evidence of other parties than Moore that appellant was in O’Donnell on the Saturday in question.

The issue of alibi was properly submitted and the jury has decided it against appellant. We see no reason to disturb their finding.

The only bills of exception in the record complain that the trial court excluded evidence which appellant expected to elicit from the alleged purchaser on cross-examination. Each of the bills sets out the question to which objection was sustained, but neither of them *609 shows what the answer of the witness would have been. Manifestly the bills are incomplete. For authorities see Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., Sec. 212, page 136, Note 31, Art. 667; Vernon’s Ann. Cr. Statutes of Texas, C. C. P. Vol. 2, page 377.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.W.2d 138, 115 Tex. Crim. 608, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-state-texcrimapp-1930.