Case Name: Victor Cortinas v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-12-06
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 52
Docket Number: No. 7242
Parties: Victor Cortinas v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 52–52

Head Matter:
Victor Cortinas v. The State.
No. 7242.
Decided December 6, 1922.
Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Accomplice—Purchaser.
Under the original Dean Act, before its amendment, which became effective November 15, 1921, the purchaser of intoxicating liquor was an accomplice — and if the testimony relied upon to secure a conviction was only that of the purchaser, the measure of proof required by the statute was not met, and where the only State’s witness in the instant case was an accomplice, the conviction could not be sustained.
Appeal from the District Court of San Patricio. Tried below before the Honorable M. A. Childers.
Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of San Patricio County of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
The indictment charges that appellant sold liquor on or about November 1, 1921. The proof adduced by the State consists in the testimony of only one witness, who swore that about November 1, 1921, he bought from the appellant a bottle of tequila, paying therefor the sum of $5. He testified that tequila was an intoxicating liquor. In his motion for new trial appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in that but one witness having testified and it being undisputed that he was the purchaser of the intoxicating liquor, under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense such witness was an accomplice. This court has held that where an indictment charges that the offense was committed prior to the amendment of the Dean Law, which became effective November 15, 1921, the law applicable upon the trial was that which prevailed prior to the taking effect of said amendment to the Dean Act. Plachy v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 405, 239 S. W. Rep., 979. Under the original Dean Act the purchaser of intoxicating liquor was an accomplice, and if the testimony relied upon to secure the conviction was only that of a purchaser, or any number of purchasers, the measure of proof required by the statute was not met. Ennis v. State, No. 7179, Opinion November 29, 1922. It follows that the only State witness being an accomplice, the contention of appellant in this regard must be upheld.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.