Case ID: tex-crim_108/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, Judge. MORROW, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lon Owens v. The State.
    No. 11204.
    Delivered November 30, 1927.
    1. — Possessing Intoxicating Liquor — No Statement of Facts or Bill of Exception.
    This record being without either a statement of facts or bill of exception, the judgment is affirmed.
    ON REHEARING.
    2. — Same—Indictment—Charge of Court — No Error Shown.
    No defect is disclosed in the indictment. In the absence of an exception to the charge of the court as required by Arts. 658 and 666, C. C. P., 1925, any inaccuracy in the charge would not be subject to review, and in the absence of a statement of facts, this court would have no guide by which to determine the correctness of the charge as applied to the facts. It is the presumption of law, unless the contrary is shown, that the procedure followed by the trial court is correct.
    Appeal from the District Court of Bell County. Tried below before the Hon. Lewis H. Jones, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, penalty one year in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, Judge.

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

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be in proper form, and the charge of the court correctly presents the law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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, Presiding Judge.

The affirmance of the case is questioned upon two grounds; first, that the indictment was defective; second, that the charge of the court was not sufficient. No defect in the indictment is pointed out or perceived. In the absence of an exception to the charge of the court, as required by Arts. 658 and 666, C. C. P., 1925, an inaccuracy in the" charge would not be subject to review. Moreover, in the absence of the evidence before the trial court, this court would have no guide by which to determine the correctness of the charge as applied to the facts. It is the presumption of law, unless the contrary is shown, that the procedure followed by the trial court is correct.

The motion is overruled. Overruled.