Case ID: sw_257/html/1100-01.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

RANDLE v. STATE.
    (No. 8214.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 23, 1924.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l097(4) — Rulings on evidence held not reviewable in absence of statement of facts.
    The court cannot pass upon the merits of bills of exceptions to rulings on evidence in absence of a statement of facts; the bills not containing matter which would enable the appellate court to say that such rulings were inaccurate or harmful.
    2. Criminal law <@=o829(l) — Special charges relating to subject covered by main charge need not be given.
    The court is not required to give special charges requested by defendant where they relate to a subject which is fully covered by the main charge.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;763, 764 ( 0 — No error to tell jury that whisky known intoxicant.
    In a liquor prosecution, it was not error to tell the jury that whisky was a known intoxicant.
    Appeal from District Court, Falls County; Prentice Oltorf, Judge.
    
      Zeake Randle was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., of Midland, and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., of Devine, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment fixed- at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The facts are not before the court.

There are several bills of exception seeking to bring forward for review the action of the court in ruling upon the admission of evidence. In the absence of a statement of facts, this court is unable to estimate the merits of the bills, if any. None of them contain matters which would enable the court to determine that the rulings were inaccurate or harmful.

Two of the bills related to the refusal of the court to give special charges, both of which requested that the jury be instructed that as a predicate for conviction they must believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. They relate to a subject which is fully covered by the main charge.

There was no error in telling the jury that whisky was a known intoxicant.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      ^soFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes