Case ID: sw2d_42/html/1025-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEAN v. STATE.
    No. 14692.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 21, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1931.
    L. D. Hartwell and D. W. Huffar, both of Greenville, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

In the indictment it was charged that the appellant “did then and there unlawfully possess for the purpose of sale, certain spirituous, vinous and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication..” In submitting the case to the jury for finding the court used the following language: “ Did unlawfully have in her possession intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale.” It is asserted in the motion for new trial that there is fundamental error in the failure of the court in instructing the jury to use the verbiage in which the offense was described in the indictment. The position is untenable. See Tucker v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 251 S. W. 1090; Vernon’s Ann. Tex. P. C. 1925, Vol. 1, p. 438, note 14; Benson v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 313, 254 S. W. 793; Stockton v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 607, 255 S. W. 1119; Stephens v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 268 S. W. 744; Elbury v. State, 114 Tex. Cr. R. 270, 25 S.W.(2d) 846; Holliman v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 94, 299 S. W. 249; Lenz v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 30, 290 S. W. 167.

The contention is untenable for the additional reason that, to require review of the charge of the court, there must be exception to the charge during the trial, as provided by article 658, C. C. P.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.