Case ID: sw_275/html/1056-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. PER CURIAM. MORROW, P. .1.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ELLIS v. STATE.
    (No. 8894.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 27, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;l 115(2) — Bill of exception, complaining that sheriff purposely failed to summon certain members of jury, held not to disclose reversible error.
    Bill of exception, complaining that sheriff purposely failed to summon certain members of jury, which did not show defendant was forced to accept any undesirable juror, or that he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, held not to disclose reversible error.
    2. Criminal law c&wkey;459 — Permitting purchaser of liquor to testify as to its intoxicating quality without qualification as expert held not error.
    Permitting purchaser of liquor to testify as to its intoxicating quality without qualification as expert held not error.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;ll!9(2) — Bill of exception, complaining of question asked witness, held insufficient to disclose error.
    Bill of exception, complaining of question asked witness, whether he ever bought whisky from defendant other than at particular time, held not to disclose error in absence of showing of surrounding facts or condition of record at time question was asked.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>l09l(2) — Bill of exception must contain sufficient facts to enable court to determine whether error is committed.
    Bill of exception must contain sufficient facts to enable court to determine whether error is committed without going through statement of facts.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5.Criminal law &wkey;>304(20) — Courts take judicial notice that whisky is intoxicating.
    Courts take judicial notice that whisky is an intoxicating liquor.
    t&wkey;>Por other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; Geo. O. O’Brien, Judge.
    Ernest Ellis was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 275 S. W. 1057.
    Howth, Adams, O’Eiel & Hart, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover 0. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Jefferson county for the' offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year.

The first two bills of exception complain of the court’s action in overruling motion to quash the jury panel. One of the objections raised is as to irregularities in refilling the jury wheel in Jefferson county, and the questions raised concerning this matter were decided against this contention in the case of McNeal v. State, 274 S. W. 981, decided by this court on the 20th of May, 1925.

There are other questions presented to the effect that the sheriff made no effort to summon certain names on the jury list for the week. We have very carefully considered this matter and the evidence pertaifiing thereto, and are unable to see that the record shows that any member of the jury was intentionally not served by the officer. The bills of exception also fail to show that any injury was done appellant, or that he was forced to take any disqualified or unacceptable juror by reason of the sheriff’s failure to summon all of the panel. In fact, the record fails to show that the appellant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges in securing a jury.

Bill of exception No. 6 complains of the court’s action in permitting the witness Davis to testify that the liquor he bought from the defendant was intoxicating. The objection to the question was that he had not been qualified as a judge of intoxicating liquor. We do not perceive that, under the authorities of this state, a person must qualify as an expert to determine whether or not liquor is intoxicating. This is a matter of common knowledge to which the layman as well as the expert is able to testify. The other questions involved in this bill go more to the weight of the testimony than its admissibility.

Bill of exception No. 5 complains of the court’s action in permitting the district attorney to ask the witness Davis if he ever bought any whisky from defendant other than at this time. This bill fails to show a single fact surrounding the matter at the time the question was asked, or a single circumstance showing the condition of the record at that time, and for that reason the bill is wholly insufficient to show any error.

What has just been said disposes also of bills Nos. 1, 2, 3,- and 4. We have repeatedly held that parties must place in their bills of exception sufficient facts to enable this court to determine whether error is committed in the matters complained of. It has also been .frequently and repeatedly held that this court will not go through the statement of facts to determirfe whether or not a bill shows error. Under these rules it is impossible for us to consider the foregoing bills of exception.

There appearing no error in the record, and the evidence being sufficient to support the verdict, it is our opinion that the case should be in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

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, P. .1.

We have re-examined the record in the light of the motion for rehearing. The complaints therein are but a reiteration of those presented on the original hearing, of all of which, in our opinion, proper disposition was made. The liquid in question was whisky. The court takes judicial notice that whisky is an intoxicating liquor. See Parker v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 262, 45 S. W. 812; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 1237.

The first bill of exceptions was not approved -by the judge. The bill in lieu of it by the court shows no error. The case of McNeal v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 274 S. W. 981, is decisive of the point made against the jury wheel.

The motion is overruled.