Case Name: ROZIER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-09
Citations: 234 S.W. 666
Docket Number: No. 6402
Parties: ROZIER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 234
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
ROZIER v. STATE.
(No. 6402.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 9, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1921.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <@=>132 — -Indictment for transporting not quashed because of conflict between state and federal law.
In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, a motion to quash the indictment because the state law was in conflict with the federal law on the subject was properly overruled.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law 1133 — Where evidence applicable to both counts, one of which was defective, rehearing denied, though jury returned general verdict.
Though a jury to which was submitted both counts of an indictment charging unlawful possession and transportation of intoxicating liquors, the former of which was defective in view of the amendment to the liquor law (Acts 37th Leg. [1921] 1st and 2d Called Sess. c. 61), in that it failed to allege that such possession was for the purpose of sale, returned a general verdict, a motion for rehearing will be overruled, where all the evidence was equally pertinent toward establishing the truth of both counts, but the judgment and sentence will be so amended and corrected as to apply the conviction to the count for unlawful transportation alone.
Appeal from District Court, Franklin County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Clyde Rozier was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed. Motion for rehearing overruled, but judgment and sentence amended and corrected.
L. W. Davidson, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction was for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. Punishment one year in penitentiary.
There are no bills of exceptions in the record. Appellant's motion to quash the indictment because our law is in conflict with the federal law upon the subject of intoxicating liquor was properly overruled. Franklin v. State, 230 S. W. 692; Ex parte Gilmore, 228 S. W. 199.
Appellant urges in his motion for new trial that the evidence shows he was acting under duress in his connection with the whisky, and therefore this conviction should be set aside. We fail to discover any such duress as will excuse a party for violating the law. Article 44, Vernon's P. C.; Burton v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 201, 101 S. W. 226.
The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
.<@z^>For otilar cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes