Case ID: sw_216/html/0164-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, J. DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(86 Tex. Cr. R. 232)
    GRANDBERRY v. STATE.
    (No. 5549.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 12, 1919.)
    1. Cbiminal law <3=1137(7) — Appeal; peb-SONS ENTITLED TO UEGE EBEOE.
    One charged with the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquors who has entered a plea of guilty and has been assessed the lowest penalty is not in position to urge on appeal as a ground for reversal the insufficiency of the evidence to prove his guilt.
    2. Criminal law <3=304(20) — Judicial notice; INTOXICANTS.
    In a prosecution for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, where defendant admitted that he made whisky, no further proof was required to show that the liquor was intoxicating.
    Davidson, P. J., dissenting.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Smith County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
    Redic Grandberry was convicted of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

The appellant is charged with the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquors. He entered a plea of guilty, and was assessed the lowest penalty.

Under these circumstances, he is not in position to urge as a ground for reversal the insufficiency of the evidence to prove his guilt. Doans v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 37 S. W. 751; Shelton v. State, 30 Tex. 431; Woodall v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 513, 126 S. W. 592; Josef v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 251, 26 S. W. 213.

If we were to look to the evidence, however, it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. He admitted that he made whisky, and further proof was not required to show that the liquor was intoxicating. Rutherford v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 21, 90 S. W. 172.

The judgment is affirmed.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

(dissenting). This is a conviction for violating what is known as the state-wide prohibition statute, passed by the Fourth Called Session of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature, page 37 of the acts of that body. It prohibits, among other things, the manufacture of intoxicants except for medicinal, sacramental, scientific, and mechanical purposes. The evidence may be sufficient. to show that appellant manufactured intoxicants. Except by deduction and inferences it is not shown that it was not manufactured for medicinal purposes, or for any specific purpose, but, without discussing that feature of the case, I am persuaded that this conviction ought not to stand; that the áet is invalid and should not he upheld in any of its phases. 1 do not purpose to discuss that view further than to refer to my dissenting opinions in Ex parte Fulton, 215 S. W. 331, and Ex parte Davis, 215 S. W. 341, both of which eases have been decided by this court recently. I might add other and different reasons for disagreeing with the majority opinion, but deem it unnecessary. Without writing further, I am still of opinion that the act under which. this conviction occurred is invalid. What I say here will apply to several other cases that are now pending involving the same question, tried hy the same judge, and from the same county, to wit, Smith county. 
      ^=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes