Hoover v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8125.) |
| Citation | 259 S.W. 1088 |
| Parties | HOOVER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Orange County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
Guy Hoover was convicted of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Reversed, and prosecution dismissed.
Howth & O'Fiel and Lamar Hart, all of Beaumont, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for 1½ years.
The indictment fails to name the purchaser or to give any reason for the failure to do so. The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained. Compliance with the constitutional and statutory provisions touching certainty demands that in an indictment of this nature the name of the purchaser should be given, if known. If not, then the indictment should identify the transaction and state that the name could not be ascertained by the grand jury. This rule was established by the Supreme Court of this state in Alexander's Case, 29 Tex. 496, and has since been given effect in many decisions of this court, notably Dixon v. State, 21 Tex. App. 517, 1 S. W. 448, and others therein cited. Moreover, the statute declares that in such an indictment the name of the purchaser must be given. Article 464, C. C. P.
The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...indictment charging the sale of intoxicating liquor, the name of the purchaser, if known, is an essential averment. See Hoover v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 91, 259 S. W. 1088. And with the averment the proof must correspond; otherwise, there will be a variance fatal to the prosecution. See Whar......
-
Barnett v. State, 25419
...497, 262 S.W. 757; Loftin v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 261 S.W. 1031; Lewis v. State, 67 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 259 S.W. 1087; Hoover v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 259 S.W. 1088; Alexander v. State, 29 Tex. 495, 496. The Lewis and Hoover cases, supra, are directly in point and At the close of the testi......
-
King v. State
...information must allege the name of the purchaser, if known, and, if unknown, that fact should be alleged. See, also, Hoover v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 259 S.W. 1088. The information in this case being fatally defective for failing to name the purchaser, the judgment is reversed and the pro......
-
Treadgill v. State, 27995
...in King v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 286 S.W.2d 422; Keeton v. State, [163 TEXCRIM 427] 159 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 264 S.W.2d 737; Hoover v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 259 S.W. 1088. Under the authorities cited, the complaint, here, is fatally It follows that the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is ......