Case Name: SKINNER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-03-18
Citations: 274 S.W. 133
Docket Number: No. 8739
Parties: SKINNER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 133–135

Head Matter:
SKINNER v. STATE.
(No. 8739.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 18, 1925.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal, April 29, 1925. On Motion for Rehearing, June 10, 1925.)
1. Criminal law 1023 (9) — Appellate court without jurisdiction on appeal from conviction, in absence of sentence.
Appellate court is without jurisdiction on appeal from conviction, where no sentence was pronounced.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;598( 10)— Continuance for absent witnesses properly denied for lack of diligence. '
Continuance because of absent witnesses was properly'denied for lack of diligence, where neither witnesses were summoned nor was it shown that process had been issued, and excuse therefor merely stated that defendant did not employ counsel until three days before trial, since which time he has been unable to locate such witnesses.
3. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;222 — Indictment need not negative exceptions in statute.
Indictment for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale need not negative exceptions in statute.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;394 — Statute authorizing officer to give receipts inapplicable to one defending against violation, of liquor law.
Statute authorizing giving of receipts by officer taking liquor into his possession is of no benefit to one defending against violation of some phase of liquor law.
5⅛ Criminal law &wkey;5lO0l(ll) — Bills of exception in question and answer form not considered.
Bills of exception in question and answer form will not be considered.
On Motion for Rehearing.
6. Criminal law &wkey;>86i — Permitting jury to smell and taste liquor, to see whether they thought it was intoxicating, held reversible error.
In prosecution for possessing intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale, permitting Jury to taste and smell liquor, pursuant to request of prosecuting attorney, to see whether or not they thought it was intoxicating liquor, held prejudicial error.
■Appeal from District Court, Wilbarger County; J. V.. Leak, Judge.
Steve Skinner was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Yarbrough & Tipton, of Electra, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Wilbarger county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.
An examination of the record reveals the absence of any sentence. Without a sentence, .this court is without jurisdiction.
The appeal will be dismissed.
<5&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KBY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<g^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes