Clifton v. State
| Citation | 170 Tex.Crim. 245,339 S.W.2d 902 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 32104,32104 |
| Parties | Howard CLIFTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
[170 TEXCRIM 246] Wm. C. Parker and G. C. Harris, Greenville, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for unlawfully selling whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, 6 months in jail and a fine of $500.
The information alleged a sale of whiskey by the appellant to one Wallace N. Colburn.
Colburn, an inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board testified that on the night in question, in company with Agent Jernigan and an informer whose name he did not know, he went to an address at 4510 Houston Street in the City of Greenville; that when they arrived he and the informer got out of the car, went to the back door of the house and after ringing the door bell, the appellant came to the door; that he then asked appellant for some whiskey to which appellant replied 'he didn't know me'; that appellant then disappeared in the house and returned with a pint bottle of Old Crow Whiskey; that he (the witness) reached in his pocket, got out some money and appellant then said he didn't want to take the money from him; that he then asked appellant if it would be all right if he took it from the man with him and he then handed the informer a $5 bill who in turn handed the money to appellant; that appellant then stated 'I'm going to play it safe, I'm going to break the seal on the bottle before I give it to you.' and then proceeded to break the seal and hand the pint of whiskey to Colburn.
It was stipulated that Hunt County was a dry area.
Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.
We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and overrule appellant's contention that the proof does not show a sale of whiskey to the witness Colburn as alleged in the information.
The evidence is undisputed that appellant delivered the whiskey to Inspector Colburn after Colburn gave the money to the informer who in turn handed it to the appellant. Such proof was sufficient to show a sale of the whiskey by the appellant to Colburn as charged in the information. See Lopez v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 442, 208 S.W. 167 and Bailey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 333 S.W.2d 365.
[170 TEXCRIM 247] Appellant complains of the court's action in overruling his amended motion for new trial which alleged jury misconduct during the jury's deliberation in the case. The motion was sworn to by appellant but was not supported by affidavit of any juror or other person in the position to know the facts. Such a motion has been held to be insufficient; hence no error is shown. Hicks v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 251...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntire v. State
...to know the facts is insufficient as a pleading. Roberson v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 381, 271 S.W.2d 663 (1954); Clifton v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 245, 339 S.W.2d 902 (1960); Marquez v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 363, 356 S.W.2d 797 (1962); Lolmaugh v. State, 514 S.W.2d 758 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Garza v.......
-
Walker v. State
...111, 10 S.W.2d 83; Brown v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 150, 267 S.W.2d 819; Procella v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 637; Clifton v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 245, 339 S.W.2d 902; Marquez v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 363, 356 S.W.2d 797; Clayton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 361 S.W.2d The record shows th......
-
Branch v. State, 42306
...pleading. Johnston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 396 S.W.2d 404, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1024, 86 S.Ct. 1976, 16 L.Ed.2d 1029; Clifton v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 245, 339 S.W.2d 902; Roberson v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 381, 271 S.W.2d 663; Brown v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 150, 267 S.W.2d 819; Vowell v. Stat......
-
Marquez v. State, 34504
...is alleged when the motion is not supported by affidavit. Roberson v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 381, 271 S.W.2d 663 and Clifton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 339 S.W.2d 902. An [172 TEXCRIM 366] essential element of this rule of law is that each separate allegation in the motion must be supported by af......