Case ID: sw_238/html/0652-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EPPS v. STATE.
    (No. 6834.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 15, 1922.)
    1. Indictment and information <&wkey;203 — General verdict of guilty refers to good count of an indictment.
    Where there is a conviction on an indictment containing a good and a bad count, a general verdict of guilty will be referred to the good count.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>1144(13) — Where no statement of facts before court on appeal, evidence presumed to support verdict.-
    Where there is no statement of facts, before the court on appeal, it must be presumed that the evidence supported the conviction.
    3. Indictment and information &wkey;>203 — General verdict refers to good count of indictment.
    Where an indictment contained counts for unlawful transportation of liquor and for unlawful possession, notwithstanding the possession count was defective, a general verdict of ■ guilty will be referred to the good count.
    Appeal from District Court, San Patricio County; M. A. Childers, Judge.
    M. Epps, alias “Sweet Papa,’’ was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reformed and affirmed.
    M. C. Nelson, of Sinton, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years for the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor. He was indicted in separate counts for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor and for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The count charging the unlawful possession is defective, in that it fails to allege that the possession was for the purpose of sale. Francis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 580, No motion was made to quash the indictment, however, nor to compel an election between the counts; nor is there an exception to the charge of the court. The verdict is a general one, finding the appellant guilty as charged in the indictment.

The point is made that because of the defective count in the indictment the judgment cannot stand. There is no statement of facts before this court, and it must indulge the presumption that the evidence which was before the trial court supports the conviction. In other words, the presumption is that the proof showed that the appellant was guilty of the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. We understand that when there is a conviction on an indictment containing a good and bad count, a general verdict will be referred to the good count. As applied to the facts before the court, the rule precludes a reversal. Pitner v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 272, 39 S. W. 662; Dent v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 126, 65 S. W. 627; Rozier v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234 S. W. 666.

The judgment will be reformed so that the conviction will rest alone upon the count in the indictment charging the .unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and, so reformed, will be affirmed. ' 
      &wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes