Case Name: Hal Earl v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1903-02-11
Citations: 44 Tex. Crim. 467
Docket Number: No. 2527
Parties: Hal Earl v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
Hal Earl v. The State.
No. 2527.
Decided February 11, 1903.
1. —Selling Liquor to Minor—Opinion Evidence.
On a trial for selling liquor to a minor, it is competent for witnesses to slate their opinion as to the age of the prosecutor from his appearance, etc.
2. —Special Instructions.
Where the court has already given a sufficient charge upon an issue, it is not necessary , to give a requested charge upon the same subject.
Appeal from the County Court of Hood. Tried below before Hon. Phil. Jackson, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for selling liquor to a minor; penalty, a fine of $45.
Ho statement necessary.
Ho briefs on file for appellant.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HEHDERSOH, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of selling liquor to a minor, and fined $45.
Appellant complains that the State was permitted to prove by certain witnesses their opinions as to the age of prosecutor, from his appearance, size, etc., and that from his personal appearance they would take him to be from 18 to 20 years of age. This character of evidence has been held to be admissible. Garner v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 561; Jones v. State, 32 Texas .Crim. Rep., 108; Earl v. State, 66 S. W. Rep., 839, 4 Texas Ct. Rep., 337. The court gave a sufficient charge on the statute as to the requirement on the part of the State to prove knowl edge by appellant at the time of the sale of the minority of the prosecutor, and it was not necessary to give the requested charge on this subject. Slaughter v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 21 S. W. Rep., 247. The evidence is amply sufficient to support the finding of the jury. Schirmacher v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 45 S. W. Rep., 802; Wuertemburg v. State (Texas Crim, App.), 51 S. W. Rep., 944; Earl v. State, 66 S. W. Rep., 839, 4 Texas Ct. Rep., 337.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.