Case Name: Lino Cantu v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-02-11
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 386
Docket Number: No. 8621
Parties: Lino Cantu v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 386–393

Head Matter:
Lino Cantu v. The State.
No. 8621.
Delivered February 11, 1925.
Rehearing Granted April 1, 1925.
Rehearing Granted State October 7, 1925.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Charge of Court — Objections to — How Preserved.
Where objections are made to the court’s charge, they must be in writing, must be presented to the Court before the charge is read to the jury, and when overruled, must show when they were presented to the trial judge, or the errors complained' of will not be reviewed on appeal. Following Salte v. State, 78 Tex. Crim. Rep. 325; and numerous other cases cited.
2. —Same—Sentence—Reformed.
The sentence omitting the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law, is reformed to read that appellant will serve not less than one, nor more than two years in the state penitentiary, and as thus reformed the judgment is affirmed.
ON BEHEABING.
3. —Same—Allegata and Probata — Variance Fatal.
On rehearing appellant presents a question not originally briefed, and directed to our attention. The allegations, in an indictment must be, proven as alleged. Where an indictment charges transportation of “spirituous vinous and malt liquors” etc., the proof must sustain the allegation, and it is not sufficient to prove only that the liquor was intoxicating.
4. —Same—Continued.
The uncontradicted evidence showed that the liquor transported was • “tequila” and that it was intoxicating. It was not clearly proven that “tequila” was either spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor. While it was not essential that the indictment under discussion, should have alleged that the liquor was “spirituous, vinous and malt liquor, capable of producing intoxication, having so. alleged, it was incumbent on the state to support with evidence the allegation, and for failure to do this, appellant’s motion for rehearing will be granted, and the cause reversed and remanded. Following Hendley v. State, 94 Tex. Crim. Rep. 40.
ON STATE’S MOTION FOB BEHEABING.
5. —Same—Evidence—Held Sufficient.
On the state’s motion for rehearing, a careful examination of the evidence adduced on the trial, leads us to the conclusion that our opinion, reversing the cause on rehearing,,on account of the state’s failure to prove that “tequila” was either a spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, was error.
6. —Same—Continued.
A witness testified that he knew that “tequila” was a spirituous liquor, using the word “spiritual”. That he was familiar with the liquor, that he had always understood it to be a spirituous liquor, that it was intoxicating, and while on cross-examination witness', admitted that he was not a chemist, and might be mistaken, we believe his testimony is sufficient to support the finding that “tequila” was a spirituous liquor, and the reversal is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.
CONCUBBING OPINION.
7. —Same—Jury—Province of.
Where a contested issue is fairly presented to the jury for their determination, their findings will not be disturbed, where there is evidence to support them. The learned trial judge told the jury that if they did not believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant transported “spirituous, vinous, and malt liquor, capable of producing intoxication they should acquit. We believe the jury justified in finding, that it was spirituous liquor.
8. —Same—Subject Continued.
In cases in which this question is a controverted one, attention of state’s attorneys is called to the fact that the state maintains its chemist at Austin, whose duty it isi to analize liquor, etc., sent him by officers of the state, and whose analysis given in testimony would appear to entirely satisfy the demands of our practice in the matter of proof.
Appeal from the District Court of Bee county. Tried below before the Hon. T. M. Cox, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
J. F. Murray, for appellant.
Tom, Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for transportation of intoxicating liquor. Punishment is two years in the penitentiary.
There appears in the record what purports to be objections to the charge given by the court. There is nothing to show when, if at all, they were ever presented to the court. They bear no authentication whatever of the trial judge. In such condition they cannot be com sidered. Salter v. State, 78 Tex. Crim. Rep. 325, 180 S. W. 691; Castleberry v. State, 88 Tex. Crim. Rep. 502, 228 S. W. 216, Rhodes v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. Rep. 574, 248 S. W. 679.
The sheriff and two of his deputies stopped a car being driven by appellant's companion. • Upon being asked by the sheriff what they had appellant replied, "These are my belongings; I will show them to you right now, ' ' whereupon he pulled from the back seat of the car a loaded shotgun. The sheriff seized hold of the gun and in the scuffle over it he fell to the ground. One of the deputies fired at appellant several times with a pistol. Appellant escaped and was not arrested until two or three days later. In the car was found one hundred and twenty-four quarts of tequila. The evidence is positive that it is intoxicating.
In view of such proof we see. no occasion for giving the special charges requested defining "intoxicating liquor" and advising the jury what was meant by spirituous-, vinous and malt liquor. Tucker v. State, 94 Tex. Crim. Rep. 505, 251 S. W. 1090.
We observe in passing sentence upon appellant he was not given the benefit of the "Indeterminate Sentence" law but was sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. The sentence is reformed to read that he will serve not less than one nor more than two years in the penitentiary, and as thus reformed the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.