Case ID: sw_154/html/1196-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROADNAX v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 19, 1913.)
    Criminal Law (§ 829*) — Instructions—Cubing by Other Instructions.
    Where the court in its main charge, and in special charges requested by accused, presented every phase of the law applicable to the evidence, the refusal of other charges was not error.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011; Dec. Dig. § 829.*]
    Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. P. Whitehurst, Judge.
    Will Broadnax was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 150 S. W. 1168.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted under complaint and information charging him with selling intoxicating liquors in territory where prohibition is not in force, without having obtained a license to sell such liquors. Appellant moved to quash the complaint and information on the same grounds which were discussed in the case of Gill v. State, 150 S. W. 616, and the court did not err in overruling the motion.

There were no exceptions reserved to the introduction or exclusion of testimony, but complaint is made of the failure of the court to give some special instructions requested. The court in his main charge, and in the two special charges given at the request of appellant, presented every phase of the law applicable to the evidence, and it was wholly unnecessary to give any of the other requested charges.

The judgment is affirmed.