Case ID: sw_189/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DIAZ v. STATE.
    (No. 4227.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 25, 1916.)
    1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1159(3) — Appeal — Scope.
    In the face of directly conflicting evidence, whether accused sold liquor unlawfully, or merely procured it for prosecuting witness, is for the jury, and the court on appeal cannot disturb the verdict.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3076; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>1159(3).]
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1090(19) — Appeal — Scope — Reservation oe Exceptions.
    The court on appeal will not consider separate grounds in a motion foi; new trial, when that is the only way exception is taken to the proceedings during trial.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2804, 3204; Dec. Dig. <&wkey; 1090(19).]
    3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1122(l) — Appeal — Scope — Record .
    Though the record contains a purported special requested charge, yet, if it fails to show that it was presented to or acted on or refused by the judge, and there is no bill to the court’s refusal, nor objection to the charges given, no question thereon is presented for review.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2940, 2944; Dec. Dig. <&wkey; 1122(1).]
    Appeal from District Court, Kleberg County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
    Lupe Diaz was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Pope & Sutherland, of Corpus Christi, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory.

He contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We have carefully read the testimony, and conclude that it was sufficient; the state’s witness testifying positively to a sale by appellant to him as alleged in the indictment. Appellant denied making a sale, but claimed that he procured at witness’ instance the liquor and delivered it to him. This was a question of fact for the jury and the trial judge, and not for this court. Hence we cannot disturb the verdict on that ground.

The only bill of exceptions in the record is to the court’s overruling his motion for a new trial. In this motion he sets up three separate and distinct grounds. The uniform practice of this court is not to consider the separate grounds in a motion for a new trial when that is the only way exception is taken to the proceedings during the trial.

There appears in the record what purports to be a special charge requested by appellant, but it in no way shows that it was ever presented to the judge, or that the judge ever saw or acted on it during the trial. There is no bill in any way to the court’s refusal to give it. No objection was made to the court’s charge for either claimed error of commission or omission. Therefore, under the very terms of the statute and the many decisions of this court thereunder, no question as to said charge is presented which this court is authorized to review.

The judgment is therefore affirmed. 
      <®=oFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and. Indexes