Case ID: sw_189/html/0142-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PARITA v. STATE.
    (No. 4224.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 25, 1916.)
    Intoxicating Liquors <§=236(11) — Offense —Sufficiency of Evidence.
    In a prosecution for violating the local option law, where the state’s witness testified to a sale of intoxicating liquor, which was denied by defendant, whose denial was supported by the testimony of a certain witness, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ '313-315; Dec. Dig. <@= 236(11).]
    Appeal from District Court, Kleberg County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
    Manuel Parita was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Pope & Sutherland, of Corpus Christi, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law; his punishment being assessed at two years and six months confinement in the penitentiary.

The only question presented is the sufficiency of the facts. The state’s witness Skipper swears to a sale of intoxicating liquor. This is denied by defendant, and he is supported by the testimony of a witness named Guest. Without discussing the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the jury saw proper to believe the evidence for the state, and we would hardly be prepared to say it is not sufficient; at least, that the jury was authorized in reaching the conclusion they did reach.

There being nothing else in the record to consider, the judgment will be affirmed.- 
      <i=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes