Case Name: GILBREATH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-04-27
Citations: 295 S.W. 925
Docket Number: No. 10605
Parties: GILBREATH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 295
Pages: 925–926

Head Matter:
GILBREATH v. STATE.
(No. 10605.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 27, 1927.
Rehearing Denied. June 8, 1927.
Bozeman & Cathey, of Quitman, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction in county court of Rains county for giving liquor to a minor; punishment, fine of $25.
There seems little question of the fact that the prosecuting witness, a minor, was given intoxicating liquor upon the occasion mentioned. He testified positively that appellant gave it to him. We will discuss the complaints made by appellant on appeal in the order in which they appear in the brief.
Appellant insists that the court should have given his special charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the refusal of which is complained of in bills of exception Nos. 4, 6, • 7, 8, and 9. Said charges in slightly different language seek to have the jury told that before appellant could be convicted in this case he must have knowingly given intoxicating liquor to the witness Adair. In support of his contention in this regard he cites the case of Earnest v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 201 S. W. 175, and other authorities therein mentioned. Without' questioning the correctness of the cases cited, attention is called to the fact that article 1054, Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code 1916, which was in force at the time the opinion was handed down in the Earnest Case, supra, and which was the law under which the Earnest Case, supra, was prosecuted, provided that any person who shall knowingly sell or give or deliver, etc., any intoxicating liquor, shall be punished. In codifying the Penal Oode which was adopted by the 39th Legislature, said article 1054, supra, was omitted, and our present statute, article 693 of the Revised Criminal Statutes of Texas (Pen. Code 1925), omits the word "knowingly" and provides simply that any person who shall give or deliver >or cause to be given or delivered, etc., to any minor, any intoxicating liquor, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100. It will thus be seen that the element of knowledge is no longer a part of the definition of this offense, and it follows that the special instructions referred to were properly refused.
Appellant's bill of exceptions No. 5 brings forward complaint of the charge of the court which was excepted to beeausé it ignored the defensive theory and did not affirmatively submit same. We are not apprised in any way as to what the defensive theory was, and therefore cannot measure the correctness of the exception.
Appellant insists that the testimony does not support the conviction. Clarence Adair testified that appellant and one Pick Dickson came to the place where he was about 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening. Witness said some one called his name and told him to come out there. He went. The person under the steering wheel of the car handed him a fruit jar, and he took a drink of the contents, which was whisky. Asked as to who the person was under the steering wheel, he said it was the defendant. On cross-examination he gave various reasons why he thought the party handing him the whisky was appellant and not the other occupant of the car, who was well known to witness. On redirect examination he again said that it was the defendant who gave him the whisky. A deputy sheriff testified that he saw the defendant and another man in a car on the night in question, and that one of them threw a fruit jar out of the car as the officer approached and that it contained whisky. He also said he smelled liquor on appellant's breath that night.
We are unable to say that there was not sufficient testimony before the jury in this case to justify them in concluding that appellant was the party who gave the whisky to the witness Adair. The witnesses were before the jury and they heard the testimony, and the trial judge who also saw the witnesses and heard the testimony refused a new trial in this case.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.