Case Name: WRBA v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-04-23
Citations: 156 S.W. 1164
Docket Number: 
Parties: WRBA v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 156
Pages: 1164–1164

Head Matter:
WRBA v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 23, 1913.
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1913.)
1. Witnesses (§ 277 ) — Cross-Examination oe Accused.
In a prosecution for selling a half pint of alcohol in a prohibition county, the question on cross-examination of accused as to whether he kept intoxicating liquors in his drug store, to which answer was made that he kept alcohol, was proper.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-983; Dec. Dig. § 277. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 720 ) — Argument oe Counsel.
Argument of the prosecuting attorney in a criminal case is not improper where based on legitimate deductions from the testimony.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1670, 1671; Dec. Dig. § 720. ]
Appeal from Johnson County Court; J. B. Haynes, Judge.
A. R. Wrba was convicted of an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
■ Odell & Johnson, of Cleburne, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquors to W. R. Cooper in a county where the sale of such liquors had been prohibited.
The evidence amply supporting the verdict, the only questions necessary to be decided are those raised in the three bills of exception; this being a misdemeanor conviction.
In the first bill of exceptions it is shown that on cross-examination of defendant the state was permitted to ask him if he kept any kind of intoxicating liquor for sale in his drug store, to which question he answered that he kept alcohol. The prosecuting witness in this case had testified appél-lant sold him ¿ half pint of alcohol; and whether or not he kept such an article for sale was a legitimate inquiry. Wagner v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 309, 109 S. W. 169; Starbeck v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 195, 109 S. W. 162; Myers v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 108 S. W. 392; Field v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 117 S. W. 806; Myers v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 223, 118 S. W. 1032.
The only other bills in the record relate to the failure of the court to give some special charges relating to the argument of the county attorney. There are no bills of exception showing that such remarks were made by the county attorney. We think the remarks not improper, as they were based on legitimate deductions from the testimony.
The judgment is affirmed.