Court Opinion

ID: 9685057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:22:05.774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.036745
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
MORRISON, Judge.
On original submission we affirmed the judgment of the trial court on two grounds:
1. That the date in the information on which the antecedent prohibition election was alleged to have been held was a matter of form only and could be amended after announcement by virtue of our holdings in Young v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 383, 116 S. W. 1158, and Murphy v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 24, 35 S. W. 174. Appellant cites us Judge Davidson’s dissent in Hamilton v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 508, 145 S.W. 348. We are impressed with the facts: first, that this is a dissent; and second, that the date of the holding of the prohibition election in that case determined whether a subsequent sale was a felony or misdemeanor. We do not have such a distinction in the case at bar. We are further impressed with the fact that the information in the instant case alleged further that no subsequent election had been held changing the dry status of the political subdivision involved.
2. That there being in the information ample allegation that the prohibition election had been held, canvassed, the result declared and published prior to the commission of the offense charged, then the date on which said election was held was surplusage. In affirming the trial court on this ground we treated the original date of November 3, 1950, and also the amended date of November 3, 1936, both as surplusage. It follows therefrom that we treated any proof as to a specific date on which such election had been held to be in the same category.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.