Case Name: Frank Kocich v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 74
Docket Number: No. 7095
Parties: Frank Kocich v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 74–77

Head Matter:
Frank Kocich v. The State.
No. 7095.
Decided February 7, 1923.
Rehearing granted March 20, 1923.
1. —Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Indictment—Duplicity.
Without discussing the merit of the contention that the indictment, is dupicitous, it must be held that the criticism of the indictment is one that cannot be made for the first time after verdict. Following Osborne v. State, 245 S. W. Rep., 928.
2. —Same—Rehearing—Practice in Trial Court — Introduction of Evidence— Plea of Guilty.
Where, upon trial of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, it appeared from the record on appeal that no evidence was introduced of defendant’s guilt of the crime charged in the indictment or the circumstances attending it, the defendant having pleaded guilty, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Appeal from the District Court of Bell. Tried below before the Hon. M. B. Blair.
Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Cited DeWitt Bowmer for the appellant.
Harwell v. State, 19 Texas Crim. Rep., 423; Paul v. State, 17 id., 583; Scott v. State, 29 id., 217; Woodall v. State, 126 S. W. Rep., 592, and cases cited in the opinion.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
Conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The indictment charged that the appellant: "did then and there unlawfully and not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific or sacramental purposes, and not for any of these purposes, sell and deliver to S. B. Dillingham, one quart of whisky, etc."
In a motion in arrest of judgment, appellant asserts, for the first time, that the indictment was duplicitous in that is charged two offenses, namely, the sale of intoxicating liquor and the delivery of intoxicating liquor.
' Without discussing the merits of the contention that the indictment is duplicitous, we are constrained to hold that the criticism of the indictment is one that cannot be made for the first time after verdict. This subject has been discussed in some detail in the case of Melley v. State, No. 7185, not yet reported, in which it is held that under the statute, Article 875, 849 and 850, Code, of Crim. Proc., complaint of a duplicitous indictment is not availuable except on mo-to quash the indictment. See also Osborne v. State, 93 Texas Crim. Rep., 54, 245 S. W. Rep., 928.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.