Case ID: sw_217/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(86 Tex. Cr. R. 420)
    WHITE v. STATE.
    (No. 5560.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 10, 1919.
    On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 14, 1920.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1090(l) — Matters reviewable WITHOUT BILL OF EXCEPTIONS OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
    In the absence of a statement of facts or bills of exception, the only matters’ reviewable are the sufficiency of the indictment and the charge of the court.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;205(2) — Allegations AS TO DATE OF OFFENSE NOT INSUFFICIENT.
    An indictment for violating the local option law, alleging that on a certain date the sale of liquor had been prohibited in a certain county,that on that date defendant unlawfully engaged in the business of selling liquor, and that on a date more than a year later he made certain specific sales, without alleging that prohibition was still in effect, was not defective; the state not being bound by the specific dates alleged.
    3. Indictment and information <&wkey;87(2) — ■ Date sufficient if prior to indictment AND WITHIN PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
    The date of an offense is practically immaterial, provided the offense is alleged to have been committed prior to filing of the indictment and within the period of limitation.
    Appeal from District Court, Smith County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
    Joe White was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    N. A. Gentry, Jr., of iTyler, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Ásst. Atty. Gen., for thp State.
   DATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted, in the district court of Smith county, of violating the local option law, and given a penalty of five years in the penitentiary.

The case is before us without a statement of facts or bills ‘of exception, and in such ease the only matters for our determination are the sufficiency of the indictment and of the charge of the court. We have examined both, and conclude that the indictment correctly charges that appellant engaged in the business and occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in' territory in which such sales had been fofibidden by a vote of the people; it b,eing alleged, in addition to the general charge,'that appellant made a number of distinct sales of such liquor.

The charge of the court is in conformity with the law, and, finding no error, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing, contending that we erred in our opinion in holding the indictment sufficient. As appears from said motion for rehearing, the contention seems to be that the indictment fixes a date, to wit, January 5, 1917, at which the sale of liquor had been theretofore prohibited by law in Smith county, and then proceeds to allege that on said date appellant unlawfully engaged in the business of selling spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquors in said county, and that said indictment further alleges that various specific sales of liquor were made in June, 1918, or a long time after the date of engaging in the business, and it is' contended that there is no allegation in the indictment that prohibition was in effect in said county on the date of the specific sales, and on that account the indictment is bad. We cannot agree with this contention. The date of an offense under our procedure is practically immaterial, provided the same be alleged to have been' committed at some time vid thin the period of limitation and prior to the filing of the indictment, and the fact'that the state alleged the date when the appellant engaged in the business of selling liquor at a time long anterior to the making of specific sales would not bind the state to that date, and certainly would not render the' indictment .-defective. It is alleged with reference to each of said specific sales that they were unlawfully made, and were made in violation of the provisions of said law.

Believing that the indictment is sufficient, and that no error was committed in so holding, the motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes