Whitmore v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Whitmore v. State

238 S.W. 219, 91 Tex. Crim. 257, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 150

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 8, 1922

DocketNo. 6732.

StatusPublished

This text of 238 S.W. 219 (Whitmore 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

Whitmore v. State, 238 S.W. 219, 91 Tex. Crim. 257, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 150 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

*258 LATTIMORE, Judge.

—Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Morris County of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor in violation of what is known as the Dean Law, and Ms punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

By the terms of the amendment to the Dean Law enacted by the Second Called Session of the 37th Legislature in the summer of 1921, the possession of such liquor, in order to be punishable, must be shown by the indictment and proof to have been had for the purposes of sale. The indictment in the instant case does not contain such allegation. We have held that for failure to allege that the possession was for the purpose of sale, an indictment attempting to charge this offense is fatally defective. That being true in the instant case, the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

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

*258 LATTIMORE, Judge.

—Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Morris County of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor in violation of what is known as the Dean Law, and Ms punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

By the terms of the amendment to the Dean Law enacted by the Second Called Session of the 37th Legislature in the summer of 1921, the possession of such liquor, in order to be punishable, must be shown by the indictment and proof to have been had for the purposes of sale. The indictment in the instant case does not contain such allegation. We have held that for failure to allege that the possession was for the purpose of sale, an indictment attempting to charge this offense is fatally defective. That being true in the instant case, the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W. 219, 91 Tex. Crim. 257, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitmore-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.