Case ID: tex-crim_80/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Manuel Parita v. The State.
    No. 4224.
    Decided October 25, 1916.
    ¡Local Option—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.
    Appeal from the District Court of Kleberg. Tried below before the Hon. W. B. Hopkins.
    Appeal from a conviction óf a violation of the local option law; penally, two years and six months imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Pope & Svtherland, for appellant.
    On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Spears v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 244; Saltillo v. State, 16 id., 249; Zollicoffer v. State, 16 id., 312; Morrison v. State, 17 id., 34; Hardin v. State, 13 id., 192; Hernandez v. State, 20 id., 151.
    
      O. 0. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

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.

Affirmed.