Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Schmidt v. State

Schmidt v. State

94 S.W.2d 743, 130 Tex. Crim. 369, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 243
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 20, 1936·No. No. 18330.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for violation of the so-called “local option law,” punishment assessed being confinement in the county jail for 90 days.

It is averred in the complaint and information that appellant sold whisky “in a dry area, to-wit: Hill County, Texas.” Said averment is insufficient to allege a violation of the law. See opinion this day delivered in No. 18,329, J. H. Whitmire v. State. (Reported on page 372 of this volume).

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed under the present complaint and information.

Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

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

Schmidt v. State, 94 S.W.2d 743, 130 Tex. Crim. 369, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 243 (Tex. 1936).

94 S.W.2d 743 (Schmidt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frost v. State
369 S.W.2d 357 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Campbell v. State
102 S.W.2d 215 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Pond v. State
101 S.W.2d 247 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Terrell v. State
99 S.W.2d 304 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Greenway v. State
98 S.W.2d 1000 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Grady v. State
97 S.W.2d 472 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1936)