Case Name: BUCKHANNAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-04-25
Citations: 252 S.W. 509
Docket Number: No. 7681
Parties: BUCKHANNAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 252
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
BUCKHANNAN v. STATE.
(No. 7681.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 25, 1923.
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1923.)
1. Conspiracy &wkey;>43<6) — Indictment for conspiracy to manufacture liquor need not negative legal permit authorizing manufacture.
An indictment for conspiracy to commit a felony, manufacturing intoxicating liquor, need not allege that accused and his coconspirators did not have a legal permit authorizing them to manufacture intoxicating liquor.
2. Conspiracy •<&wkey;28 — Statute includes conspiracy to commit acts made felony by future legislation.
An indictment for conspiracy to commit a felony, manufacturing intoxicating liquor, was not open to the objection that at the time of the enactment of the statute penalizing conspiracy to commit a felony there was no such felony offense as the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, as the statute included within its prohibition. a conspiracy to commit any act which might thereafter be made a felony.
■On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Indifctment and information &wkey;j(II(I) — indictment need'not negative exceptions to statute defining offense which was subject of conspiracy.
An indictment for conspiracy to commit a felony need not negative the exceptions contained in the statute as to the felony, where in an indictment charging the felony alone it would not be necessary to negative statutory exceptions. , ' •
Appeal from District Court, Morris County ; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Milton Buckhannan was convicted of conspiracy to commit a felony, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Henderson & Bolin, of Daingerfield, for appellant.
R. G. Stor.ey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMO'KE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Morris 'county of a conspiracy to commit a felony, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
There is hut one hill of exceptions in the record which contends that the indictment was insufficient for not alleging that appellant and his coconspirators did not have a legal permit authorizing them to manufacture intoxicating liquor. We deem the contention without merit, and have held that if one manufactures intoxicating liquor for one of the excepted purposes, the fact that he has no permit does not penalize him. Burciago v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 576, 228 S. W. 562; White v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 247 S. W. 557. Nor do we think it a sound proposition that the indictment charged no offense because at the time of the enactment of the statute making a conspiracy to commit a felony, punishable by law, there was no such felony offense in this state as the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating " liquor. In our opinion if was the intention of the Legislature in the enactment of the conspiracy statute to include within its prohibition a conspiracy to commit any felony which might thereafter be made such by the Legislature.
There seems no question of the purpose of appellant to unlawfully manufacture intoxicating liquor. The state's case shows beyond question that he and others were engaged in preparation for such manufacture, carried to the point of putting in place and getting ready the instruments and machinery for same. Appellant testified admitting his own preparation for such manufacture and purpose so to engage, but denying participation therein by any other person. The evidence offered on behalf of the state 'justified the conclusion of the jury that other persons were so engaged with him in such preparation and their further conclusion of a conspiracy to perform the act made a felony by the statute.
Binding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
(SssFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes