Case Name: P. Robert v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-11-17
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 488
Docket Number: No. 5971
Parties: P. Robert v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 488–492

Head Matter:
P. Robert v. The State.
No. 5971.
Decided November 17, 1920.
Rehearing denied February 16, 1921.
1. —Intoxicating Liquors—Recognizance.
Where, upon an appeal from a violation of the so-called “Dean Law,” the recognizance was insufficient to confer the jurisdiction upon this Court, the same is dismissed, however, a new recognizance having been filed, which is in proper form, the appeal is re-instated.
2. —Same—Constitutional Law—Federal and State Legislation.
The constitutionality of the so-called “Dean Prohibition Law” has been upheld, and is not in conflict with the so-called Volstead Act passed by the Congress of the United States. Following Ex Parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Grim. Rep., 529, Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
3. —Same—Accomplice—Corroboration—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the. so-called Dean Law, the defendant excepted to the court’s failure to instruct the jury with reference to the law of accomplice, and pointed out that the purchasers of the whisky from the defendant were accomplices, the conviction cannot be sustained and there was reversible error.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Purchaser of Intoxicating Liquors—Accomplice.
By the terms of the so-called “Dean Law,” enacted after the Constitutional amendment to the State Constitution was adopted, the purchaser as well as the seller is made to suffer the penalty for its violation, and it was necessary to charge upon accomplice testimony where- the conviction depended upon the testimony of the purchasers of the intoxicating liquors. Following Franklin v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 342.
5. —Same—Confession—Corpus Delicti—Defendant’s Confession.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the State prohibition law, the court below failed to charge upon accomplice testimony, the record showing that the State’s witnesses were purchasers of the liquor sold, the conviction could not be sustained, although the defendant confessed the sale of such liquor, inasmuch as the corpus delicti could not be established by the defendant’s confession alone.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried before the Honorable C. W. Robinson.
Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the Dean law; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Harry C. Gerlach, P. C. Del Barto, and F. Charles Hume, Jr., for appellant.
Cited cases in opinion.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, and E. T. Branch, County Attorney, for the State.
Cited Taylor v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 184; Griffin v. State, 43 id., 428; Kain v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 311; Stone v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 675; Liegois v. State, 164 S. W. Rep., 382; Gray v. State, 178 id., 337; Willingham v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 98; Berlew v. State, 225 S. W. Rep., 518; Hamilton v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 374.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
This conviction is for a violation of the Dean prohibition law.
Motion to dismiss the appeal is made upon the ground that the recognizance is insufficient, in that it does not comply with the statute. It recites that appellant stands charged with "violation of the liquor law." This is not sufficient under the decisions of this court to describe the offense for which he stands charged, nor does it recite the punishment awarded appellant. It is necessary under the form prescribed by the Legislature that the amount of the punishment be stated in the recognizance.
For the reasons indicated the motion of the Assistant Attorney General must be sustained. The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.