Case ID: sw_260/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRADEN v. STATE.
    (No. 8119.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 26, 1924.)
    Intoxicating liquors <§=>222 — Indictment negativing exceptions conjunctively held defective.
    An indictment for transporting intoxicating liquor, for an offense laid prior to taking effect of amendment to Dean Law in November, 1921 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.), which negatived exceptions con-junctively, “and” being used instead of “or,” was defective, and prosecution based thereon should be dismissed.
    Appeal from District Court, Lamar County; Ben. H. Denton, Judge.
    Leo Braden was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
    W. A. Hutchison, of Paris, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Lamar county of transporting intoxicating ’ liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The date of the offense as laid in the indictment was prior to the taking effect of the amendment to the Dean Law in November, 1921, which placed the exceptions to the statute in a separate section of the law from the enacting clause, since which time we have uniformly held it not necessary to negative such exceptions in the indictment. A motion was made to quash this indictment because the exceptions were negatived con-•junctively, the word “and” being used instead of the word “or.” The learned trial judge erroneously overruled the motion to quash based on said1 defect in the indictment, for which error the judgment of the trial court must be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed. Davis v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 300, 250 S. W. 1029, and authorities there cited, support the proposition advanced.

For the reason mentioned the judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.