Case Name: Joe T. Clevenger v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-03
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 23
Docket Number: No. 7732
Parties: Joe T. Clevenger v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 23–25

Head Matter:
Joe T. Clevenger v. The State.
No. 7732.
Decided October 3, 1923.
Rehearing granted November 14, 1923.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Argument of Counsel.
In the absence of anything in the bill of exceptions which negatives the fact that the argument related to part of the evidence in the case, there is no reversible error.
2. —Same—Charge of Court — Medicinal Purposes — Reasonable Doubt.
Where the evidence raised the issue that the whisky in question was for using) it as a medicine, and the jury were instructed, if they believed that the purpose of appellant in transporting the intoxicant was to use it for medicine to acquit, and the court was requested to instruct the jury, if they believed the appellant transported the liquor for medicine or had a reasonable doubt as to whether that was its purpose to acquit him, which was refused, the same is reversible error.
3. —Same—Medicinal Purpose — Reasonable Doubt — Charge of Court.
The law did not impose upon defendant the duty of proving the truth of liis defensive theory, but it required alone that the evidence be such as to establish such fact as would leave in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to its truth, and the requested charge should have been given. Following Sparlin v. State, 170 S. W. Rep., 307, and other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of Angelina. Tried below before the Honorable L. D. Guinn.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the' case.
Poston & Seale, and Coleman & Lowe, for appellant.
Cited, Goforth v. State, 241 S. W. Rep., 1027; Castro v. State, 146 S. W. Rep., 553; Stuart v. State, 124 S. W. Rep., 656, and Shamburger v. State, 6 S. W. Rep., 540.
W. A. Keeling, Attorney General, and C. L. Stone, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of charge of court, Kluting v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 44; Rylee v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 482.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
— Conviction is for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
Appellant had in his possession while riding horseback along the public road two quarts of whisky tied to his saddle. He declared in his testimony that he was taking the whisky to his home for medicinal purposes. This issue, thus raised, was submitted to the jury, and they were instructed that if he was carrying the whisky to his home for medicinal purposes, an acquittal should result.
There is a bill complaining of the statement of the prosecuting attorney in argument to the effect that appellant had told a different story to the officers when he was caught. We find nothing in the bill which negatives the fact that the argument related to part of the evidence in the case. The bill, therefore, reveals no error
The judgment is affirmed.