Case Name: Buddy Thompson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-10-10
Citations: 82 Tex. Crim. 36
Docket Number: No. 4572
Parties: Buddy Thompson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 36–38

Head Matter:
Buddy Thompson v. The State.
No. 4572.
Decided October 10, 1917.
Rehearing denied October 31, 1917.
1.—Local Option—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.
3.—Same—Accomplice Testimony—Charge of Court.
Where defendant in his motion for new trial contended that the State’s witness was an accomplice, his contention can not be sustained in the absence of a request for a special charge; besides, the evidence did not raise the issue.
3. —Same—Motion for Rehearing—Agency.
Where appellant in his motion for rehearing contended that the defendant acted as the agent of the prosecutor in procuring the whisky, but the record showed that the reverse of appellant’s contention is true, there was no reversible error.
4. —Same—Requested Charge—Practice on Appeal.
Where appellant in his motion for rehearing contended that his requested charge on agency was submitted, he could not complain.
Appeal from the District Court of Caldwell. Tried below before the Hon. Drank S. Roberts.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, not less than one nor more than two years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Olinthus Ellis, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for making an illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory.
The evidence by the State's witness is positive and clear, showing that on the date alleged, after the prohibition law was in force making it a felony, appellant sold to him a quart of whisky. Appellant did not himself testify. The evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Appellant has no bills of exceptions, made no objection to the charge of the court, and asked no special charges. In his motion for a new trial he claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, and contends that the State's witness to whom the sale was made was an accomplice, and a conviction could not be had upon his testimony alone. He did not ask that this question be in any way submitted by the charge of the court. His contention can not be sustained. The evidence does not show, or tend to show, that the State's0witness to whom the sale was alleged to have been made was an accomplice in the sale to him by appellant.
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.