Case Name: EUBANK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-01-20
Citations: 286 S.W. 234
Docket Number: No. 9829
Parties: EUBANK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 286
Pages: 234–236

Head Matter:
EUBANK v. STATE.
(No. 9829.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 20, 1926.
Rehearing Denied April 28, 1926.
Application to Pile Second Motion for Rehearing Denied June 25, 1926.)
Tom Whipple, of Waxahachie, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BEERY, J.
The offense is selling intoxicating liquor, and the punishment is one year in the penitentiary. The indictment charges that the appellant did unlawfully sell "spirituous, vinous, and malt liquor containing in-excess of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume." The state's testimony shows that the prosecuting witness bought 18 bottles of beer from the appellant and paid him $5 therefor; that the officers recovered part of this beer from the purchaser and turned it over to a chemist to be analyzed, and the chemist who analyzed it testified that it contained more than 5 per cent, of alcohol.
The offense charged in the indictment is denounced by article 667 of the 1925 Penal Code. Beer is a malt liquor. Bouvier's Daw Dictionary, p. 334; Tolar v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 260 S. W. 1044. From the foregoing it follows that, in our opinion, the appellant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict is without merit.
Appellant complains because the court instructed the jury as to the effect of the defendant's failure to testify' in his own behalf. The criticism is not leveled at the form of the charge given, but the complaint is at the fact that the court charged on this issue at all. Many, authorities will be found under paragraph 4, § 377, Branch's Ann. Texas P. G., holding that it is not error for the court to charge on the defendant's failure to testify.
Complaint is made with reference to the misconduct of the jury. Appellant contends that the jury, discussed his failure to testify, and also referred to the fact that he had once before been tried for violating the liquor laws. The statement of facts heard on this motion for new trial is preserved in the record. We have carefully examined this statement of facts, and have reached the conclusion that the court did not abuse his discretion in refusing a new trial. We think it clear from the testimony of the jurors that they did not discuss his failure to testify, but it was merely casually mentioned, and the testimony of each juror negatives the idea that there was any discussion of the matter. The same is true with reference to a former trial of the appellant. The most that the testimony shows is that some one merely mentioned the fact that he had been tried before. The identical questions raised with reference to the misconduct of the jury were decided adversely to the appellant's contention in the case of Gutierrez v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 364, 272 S. W. 780, and on the authority of that case and the case therein cited appellant's complaint herein is overruled.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.