Case Name: KOCICH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 249 S.W. 494
Docket Number: No. 7095
Parties: KOCICH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 249
Pages: 494–495

Head Matter:
KOCICH v. STATE.
(No. 7095.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 7, 1923.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 21, 1923.)
1. Indictment and information &wkey;>202(8)— That indictment is duplicitous cannot be raised for first time after verdict.
The objection that an indictment is duplicitous cannot be made for first time after verdict. '
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;980(I) — Testimony on plea of guilty held not legal evidence, contemplated by statute.
In a prosecution for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, where accused pleaded guilty, and the only evidence introduced was to the effect that accused was sane, and from .'hearsay the sheriff indicated he (the sheriff) was in possession of whisky which had been obtained from accused! but disclaimed having obtained it from accused, held, that there was no legal evidence offered of the crime charged, such as was authorized to go before the jury-as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 566.
Appeal from District Court, Bell County; M. B. Blair, Judge.
Prank Kocich was convicted of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.-
De Witt Bowmér, of Temple, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen,, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in .the penitentiary for one year. The indictment charged that' the appellant:
"did then and there unlawfully and not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes, and not for any of these purposes, sell and deliver to S. B. Dillingham, one quart of whisky," etc.
In a motion in arrest of judgment, appellant asserts, for the first time, that the 'indictment" was duplicitous in that it charged two offenses, námely, the sale of intoxicating liquor and the delivery' of intoxicating liquor.
Without discussing the merits of the contention that the indictment is duplicitous; we are constrained to hold that the criticism of the indictment is one that cannot be made for the first time after verdict. This subject has been discussed in some detail in the case of Melley v. State, No. 7185, 248 S. W. 367, not yet [officially] reported, in which it is held that under the statute (articles 875, 849, and 850, Code of Crim. Proc.) complaint of a duplicitous indictment is not available, except on motion to quash the indictment. See, also, Osborne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 245 S. W. 928.
The judgment is affirmed.
(g=s>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes