Smoot v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Smoot v. State

90 S.W.2d 836

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 12, 1936

DocketNo. 17945

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.W.2d 836 (Smoot 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

Smoot v. State, 90 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

Since the conviction, the law (Pen. Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended) upon which the prosecution was predicated has been repealed without any saving clause (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 4-9). See Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

Since the conviction, the law (Pen. Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended) upon which the prosecution was predicated has been repealed without any saving clause (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 4-9). See Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.W.2d 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smoot-v-state-texcrimapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack