Case ID: sw2d_1/html/0890-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OWENS v. STATE.
    (No. 11204.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 30, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey; 1056(1) — Inaccuracy in charge is not reviewable, in absence of an exception thereto (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 658, 666).
    In absence of exception to charge of trial court as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 658, 666, an inaccuracy in charge is not subject to review.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 144(i/2) — Procedure followed by trial court is presumed correct, unless contrary is shown.
    It is presumption of law, unless contrary is shown, that procedure followed by trial court is correct.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Bell County; Lewis H. Jones, Judge.
    Lon Owens was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquors for purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. W. Thomas, of Belton, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the 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.

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. J.

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 articles 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.