Case Name: RAMBO v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 258 S.W. 827
Docket Number: No. 7431
Parties: RAMBO v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 258
Pages: 827–830

Head Matter:
RAMBO v. STATE.
(No. 7431.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 24, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1923.
On Application to File Second Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 23, 1924.)
I.Intoxicating liquors <©=5216 — Averments as to charadter of beverage sold held sufficient.
An indictment charging the sale of liquor '‘capable of producing intoxication” sufficiently charges a law violation.
2. Intoxicating liquors <©=>19 — Statute prohibiting sale not invalid because of provision against suspended sentence.
That the law forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquor denies to violators thereof over the age of 25 years the right of a suspended sentence does not render it invalid.
3. Criminal law <§=>459 — Objection to testimony as to intoxicating qualities held with- - out merit.
Objection to testimony as to the intoxicating quality of liquor, on the ground that the witness was not qualified as an expert, held without merit.
4. Criminal law <©=>1120(5) — Exception to evidence not showing its connection with case held not to present error.
In a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating liquor, an exception complaining of the admission of testimony that a witness had previously seen and repaired a container and coil shown him, and that he had talked with defendant in regard to repairing the coil, held not to present error, in the absence of any showing of surrounding circumstances.
5. Criminal law <©=>982— Refusal to submit issue of suspended sentence held not error.
Where defendant, accused of the sale of intoxicating liquor, is concededly more than 25 years of age, and therefore not entitled, under the statute, to the benefit of a suspended sentence, refusal of the court to submit the issue of such right is not error.
On Motion for Rehearing.
6. Criminal law <©=>I 129(5) — Exception complaining of evidence not certifying to facts showing its inadmissibility held not to present error.
Exceptions complaining of the reception of testimony that the defendant had been seen helping operate a still on premises other than his own, and that a still had been found on such premises, but not certifying to any facts rendering such testimony inadmissible, and the mere statement of the grounds of objection not sufficing for that purpose, do not present error.
7. Criminal law <§=> 1122(1) — Refusal cf requested charge held net to present error.
Refusal to give a requested charge does not present error, where such charge as it appears in the transcript bears no indorsement of the judge, is silent as to when it was presented, does not show whether it was given or refused, and where the record contains no separate bill of exceptions curing such defects and bringing the matter forward for review.
8. Criminal law <©=>1184 — Appellate court held empowered to reform judgment and apply verdict to particular count of indictment.
Where a verdict found defendant guilty, under two counts .of an indictment, first, of Selling liquor, and, second, of furnishing liquor to the same person, and where the judgment following the vei;dict condemned defendant as guilty of both selling and furnishing liquor, held, that the appellate court, under Code Or. Proc. .1911, art. 938, had the right to reform the judgment and apply the verdict to the count of the indictment charging the sale; the offense of furnishing liquor being included therein.
Appeal from District Court, Burnet County ; J. H. McLean, Judge.
G. Rambo was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
F., H. Hammond, of Burnet, and J. P. Murray, of Runge, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Prom a conviction in the district court of Burnet county for selling intoxicating liquor, appellant brings tliis appeal.
The facts are amply sufficient* to support the conclusion of the jury, and will not be further discussed.
By his first bill of exceptions, appellant complains of the overruling of his motion to quash the indictment, based on the proposition that to charge a sale of liquor "capable of producing intoxication" does not charge a violation of the law. This question has been decided adversely to appellant's contention. Tucker v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 251 S. W. 1090.
Complaint is also made because the law forbidding the sale of liquor seeks .to prevent a person over the age of 25 years from obtaining the benefit of a suspended sentence, when charged with a violation of said law. This contention has been decided against appellant in the case of Davis v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 246 S. W. 395.
By his bills of exception Nos. 2, 4, and 8 appellant complains of matters which he insists were wrongfully brought out in testimony. Each of said bills of exception is qualified by the learned trial judge by a statement that the matters so objected to had been inquired about by the appellant in his direct examination of the .witnesses, and that the parts so objected to were brought out by the state in rebuttal of, and in reply to, the direct examination made by appellant. Neither of said bills of exception presents any error, in view of the qualification mentioned.
Objection to a witness testifying that said liquor is intoxicating, the objection being upon the ground that the witness had not qualified as an expert, does not seem to this court to be a meritorious objection.
It was not erroneous to refuse the appellant's request for a peremptory instruction of not guilty. The 'testimony, as stated above, seems ample to support the conviction.
By his bill of exceptions No. 7 appellant complains of a certain witness for the state being permitted to testify that he had seen a container before, which was then shown him, and that he had repaired the coil in said container some months prior to this trial, and that he had had a conversation with appellant in regard to repairing said coil. There is nothing in'the bill which shows the connection of the evidence thus-objected to, and we are unable to appraise-the weight of the objection. We can conceive of many conditions which might arise-in a case such as this in which this evidence would be very material. We have said in many cases that the mere statement of grounds of objection by the appellant does not amount to proof of the truth of the facts stated in such objection.
Bill of exceptions No. 9 presents appellant's complaint of the refusal of the learned-trial judge to submit to the jury the question-of a suspended sentence. It was admitted that appellant was over 25 years of age, and in such case it is provided by law that the accused shall not be entitled to the benefit of a suspended sentence. Davis v. State, supra.
The argument complained of by appellant contains no abusive language, nor does it evidence the introduction of any statement in the argument regarding the evidence which-contained matter not in testimony before the jury. The record is barren of any requested' charge asking the jury not to consider such-argument. Rainey v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 231 S. W. 118; Monroe v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 230 S. W. 995.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
<gs»Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes