Case ID: sw_154/html/0997-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROBINSON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 5, 1913.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 205*) — Prosecution for Selling — Indictment—Adoption and Violation of Law.
    An indictment for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of Pen. Code 1911, art. 597, which alleges, without giving the date, that the prohibition law was put in force by election orders, etc., prior to the time the act making it a felony was passed, was sufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 225; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]
    
      2. Criminal Law (§ 304*) — Judicial Notice —Local Option Territory.
    The Court of Criminal Appeals does not judicially know that prohibition is in force in any given locality in the state, nor can any of the lower courts have such judicial knowledge.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 295%, 700-717; Dec. Dig. § 304.*]
    3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 239*) — Prosecution eor Selling — Question for Jury.
    Under the existing law, whereby an election resulting in prohibition, not contested within the time specified, becomes effective as a matter of law, the court, after proof by the introduction of the proper orders, etc., can charge, as a matter of law, that prohibition is in force.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 331-347; Dec. • Dig. § 239.*]
    4. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236*) — Prosecutions— Failure to Prove Local Option.
    In a prosecution under Pen. Code 1911, art. 597, for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, failure to prove that prohibition was in force in the county, or when or how it was put in force, was reversible error.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. § 236.*]
    Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.
    Blue Jay Robinson was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    J. W. Minton, of Hemphill, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor under the first part of article 597, P. C., making it a misdemeanor, and fined $25 and 20 days in jail.

Appellant claims the indictment is invalid, because it does not allege the specific date on which prohibition was put in force in Sabine county; it alleging, however, without giving the date, that the prohibition law was put in force by election orders,, etc., prior to the time the act making it a felony was passed. The indictment, in our opinion, is sufficient. James v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 80, 138 S. W. 612.

No evidence whatever .was introduced on the trial of the various orders of election, declaring the result, publication, and the order making prohibition effective. In other words, there was no proof at all introduced on the trial that prohibition was in force in Sabine county, nor when nor how liut in force. The point was clearly made in various ways by the appellant in the lower court and in this. This court has many times and uniformly held that it does not and cannot judicially know that prohibition is in force in any given locality in this state, nor can any of the lower courts have such judicial knowledge. It is therefore always necessary to make this proof. When the proof is made by the introduction of the proper orders, etc., then, under the law as it now is, the court can charge as a matter of law that prohibition is in force; but it cannot do so in any case, unless such proof is made. The reason it can so charge when the proof is made is because, under the law as it now is, where an election resulting in prohibition has been carried, and it has not been contested within . the time specified, it becomes effective as a matter of law, and does not have to be found as a fact by the jury. The failure to make this proof necessarily results in a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. '