Case Name: MECOMB v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-13
Citations: 272 S.W. 185
Docket Number: No. 9041
Parties: MECOMB v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
MECOMB v. STATE.
(No. 9041.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 13, 1925.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <®=222— Indictment for possessing liquor after November 15, 1921, need not allege that liquor Was not possessed for lawful purposes.
Indictment for possessing intoxicating liquor, -which laid date of offense after November 15, 1921, need not allege that possession was not for one of lawful purposes mentioned in Constitution and statute, but, if possession on which prosecution was founded transpired before November 15, 1921, indictment must negative fact that possession was not for lawful purposes.
2. Criminal law <§=772(4) — Special charge that accused should be acquitted, if liquor was possessed prior to November 14, 1921, .held proper.
If transaction on which prosecution for possessing liquor occurred prior to November 15, 1921, there could be no conviction under indictment which did not aver that possession was not for purposes mentioned in Constitution and statute, so that instruction that accused should be acquitted, if possession was prior to November 14, 1921, should have been given, where evidence as to date of possession was conflicting.
Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
C. P. Mecomb was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed.
N. H. Rather, of Honey Grove, and Cunningham & Lipscomb, of Bonham, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The indictment was returned in August, 1922; the date of the offense was fixed as on or about December 11, 1921. At the date the offense is laid in the indictment it was not required that the indictment contain an averment that the possession was not for one of the lawful purposes named in the Constitution and the statute. If, however, the transaction upon which the prosecution is founded took place prior to November 15, 1921, the" indictment, failing to contain the negative averments mentioned, would not support the conviction. McNeil v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 402, 239 S. W. 954.
The witness Self testified to the possession of whisky by appellant. He fixed the date as '.'on or about December 11, 1922," but stated on cross-examination that he was uncertain as to the exact date but "thought it was in November or December, 1921." The arrest took place in July, 1922, and appellant, in his testimony, denied the offense and claimed that it was the state's witness Self who possessed the liquor and that the date was' the 13th day of November, 1921. From both the state's witnesses and the appellant, it was shown that other persons were present at the time of the alleged offense, and sbmé of these witnesses gave the time as in November, and were uncertain as to the day of that month.
The court instructed the jury that, if the appellant, "on or about the 11th day of December, 1921, possessed intoxicating liquor, etc., he would be guilty." The court refused to give a special charge to the effect that, if the transaction took place prior to November 14, 1921, there should be an acquittal.
The state's attorney, before this court, concedes that, in refusing to give the special charge mentioned, there was error committed which requires a reversal of the judgment, if the transaction upon which, the prosecution is founded took place prior to November 15, 1921, there could be no conviction under the indictment. Francis v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 67, 233 S. W. 974; Ex parte Mitchum, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 62, 237 S. W. 936. It was therefore important that there should be an instruction requiring the jury, as a predicate for conviction, to determine that the offense, if any was committed, was subsequent to November 15, 1921.
The error pointed out requires a reversal of the judgment, which is ordered.
\g^For other cases see same topic 'and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes