Case Name: Henry Vrazel v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-10-12
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 162
Docket Number: No. 6226
Parties: Henry Vrazel v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 162–164

Head Matter:
Henry Vrazel v. The State.
No. 6226.
Decided October 12, 1921.
1. — Manufacturing, etc., Intoxicating Liquor — Indictment—Duplicitous Pleading.
Where, upon trial of manufacturing and possessing intoxicating liquor not for medicinal, etc., purposes, the .count submitted charged that the defendant manufactured and possessed the liquor in question, the same was duplicitous pleading and bad upon motion to quash, the offenses being-separate and distinct. Following Todd v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 99.
2. — Same—Rehearing—Separate Offenses — Pleading.
Where, upon motion for rehearing, the State contended that manufacturing liquor and possessing liquor, though made separate offenses, by the so-called Dean Act, necessarily involved each other, and could be alleged in the same count, held: that such contention is untenable. Distinguishing Nicholas v. State, 5 S- W. Rep., 241, and other cases, and each of these offenses does not necessarily involve the other.
Appeal from the District Court of Milam. Tried below before the-Honorable John Watson.
Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing and possessing intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Robert M. Lyles, and T. H. McGregor, and A. J. Lewis, for appellant.
Cited: Alexander v. State, 102 S. W. Rep., 1122; Scales v. State, 81 S. W. Rep., 947; Heineman .v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 44;. Hickman v. State, 22 id., 441.
R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District-Court of Milam County for manufacturing and possessing intoxicating-liquor, not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific or sacramental purposes, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
There were two counts in the indictment. The trial court submitted only the second, which charged that appellant manufactured and. possessed the liquor in question, the jury being told in the charge that if they found appellant unlawfully manufactured or possessed such liquor they should convict. A motion to quash said count upon the ground that same was duplicitous and charged therein two separate and distinct felonies, was overruled, and our Assistant Attorney General concedes in his brief that under the authority of Todd v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 99, 229 S. W. Rep., 515, this was error. Finding ourselves in accord with his position, without discussion of the other matters raised on the appeal, the judgment will be.reversed and the cause ordered'dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.