Bridges v. State
| Decision Date | 03 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34053,34053 |
| Citation | 83 S.Ct. 38,172 Tex.Crim. 508,360 S.W.2d 531 |
| Parties | , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,579 W. L. BRIDGES, Sr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert B. Billings, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Phil Burleson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted upon a plea of guilty before the court without a jury under The Securities Act, Art. 581-1, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., for the offense of the unlawful sale of securities and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
No statement of facts of the evidence adduced upon the trial accompanies the record and there are no bills of exception.
Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the indictment fails to charge an offense because it did not negative the exempt transactions enumerated in sec. 5 of The Securities Act. The contention is urged as fundamental error, no exception or motion to quash the indictment having been filed by appellant in the trial court.
In Baker v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 527, 106 S.W.2d 308, 311, Judge Lattimore speaking for this Court, in announcing the rule with reference to the necessity of negativing statutory exceptions in charging an offense in an indictment said:
'From what we have said above, and as far as we have been able to ascertain, our courts have uniformly held that when the Legislature sees fit to create exceptions to the general penal provisions of a statute if such exceptions be placed in a separate section or article from the one containing the definition of the offense, or if they be not such as to be essential to the definition of the offense, it will not be necessary to negative such exceptions in the indictment charging such offense. * * *'
See also 1 Branch's Ann.P.C.2d par. 530, p. 508, and cases there cited.
An examination of The Securities Act clearly reflects that the exempt transactions, separately enumerated in sec. 5 thereof, are not a part of the offense of unlawfully selling securities as defined in other sections of the Act. It was not necessary that the indictment negative the exempt transactions enumerated in sec. 5 of the Act in charging appellant with the offense.
The allegations contained in the second count of the indictment under which appellant stands convicted are sufficient to charge an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Auto Auction of Orlando, Inc. v. U.S.
... ... We reverse in part and affirm in part ... Appellees conduct automobile auctions in the State of Florida, selling used cars to wholesale dealers. Appellees review the ... Page 501 ... credit histories of all dealers participating in a ... ...
-
Cox v. State, 49913
...(Art. 581--29, supra), the State was not required to negative the exemption as one of its elements of proof. See Bridges v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 508, 360 S.W.2d 531, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 821, 83 S.Ct. 38, 9 L.Ed.2d 61; See Salazar v. State (Tex.Cr.App.), 423 S.W.2d 297 (1968). The burden ......
-
Dean v. State
...(Art. 581--29, supra), the State was not required to negative the exemption as one of its elements of proof. See Bridges v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 508, 360 S.W.2d 531, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 821, 83 S.Ct. 38, 9 L.Ed.2d 61; See also Salazar v. State, 423 S.W.2d 297 (1968). The burden rested wi......
- Bridges v. State