Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1913 |
| Citation | 157 S.W. 1196 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from San Saba County Court; J. T. Hartley, Judge.
John Jackson was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The grand jury of San Saba county indicted appellant and another jointly for an illegal sale of intoxicating liquors after an election putting prohibition in force had been had, properly declared, and published.
The indictment charges the offense to have been committed on September 7, 1912. After the indictment was properly returned and filed in the district court, the district judge made an order that as the indictment was for a misdemeanor the district court had no jurisdiction thereof and properly transferred the case to the county court. There was a severance and appellant tried first.
The indictment does not allege when the election was held in San Saba county, nor when prohibition therein went into effect. This court has uniformly held that where the indictment does not allege when prohibition went into effect, and that the offense was committed after the felony statute went into effect, that the indictment prima facie charged a felony. Enriquez v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 580, 132 S. W. 782; Garner v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 138 S. W. 124.
This court has also uniformly decided that the date on which a prohibition election was put in force was a matter of form, and, in order for a defendant to take advantage thereof, it was necessary to properly plead to the jurisdiction, but that the state could amend the indictment, or complaint and information showing the date prohibition was put in force. Hamilton v. State, 145 S. W. 348. We merely call attention to these matters so that the parties in the lower court can govern themselves in accordance with said decisions. There is but one question raised necessary to be decided.
This court has uniformly held, and there are a large number of decisions to that effect, that a conviction for violating the prohibition law in any county or subdivision thereof where prohibition has been adopted cannot be sustained, unless proof was made showing that prohibition had been adopted and was in force at the time the alleged violation occurred; that the courts cannot take judicial notice that prohibition is in force in any county or subdivision thereof. The personal knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. State
...and testify to what he knows . . . ." Texas Practice, 1 McCormick & Ray, 2nd Ed., Evidence, § 152, p. 1972. See also Jackson v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 157 S.W. 1196 (1913); Lerma v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 194 S.W. 167 Without discussing these holdings or the rule of judicial notice in g......
-
Stephenson v. State
...that the trial court could not take judicial notice of previous testimony.As to opinions of this court, cf. Jackson v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 157 S.W. 1196 (1913) ('The personal knowledge of the presiding judge is not judicial notice.' Jackson at 157 S.W. 1196). Accord: Lerma v. State, 81......
-
Emerson v. State
...not the equivalent of personal knowledge and judicial notice may not be taken of matters not known generally. See, Jackson v. State, 70 Tex.Crim. 582, 157 S.W. 1196 (App.1913). Judicial notice may not be taken of the laws of another state or a city ordinance. See, Plaster, 567 S.W.2d at 502......
-
Barrientez v. State
...testify to what he knows . . ..' Texas Practice, 1 McCormick & Ray, 2nd Ed., Evidence, Sec. 152, p. 172. See also Jackson v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 157 S.W. 1196 (1913); Lerma v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 194 S.W. 167 (1917). Further, in Scott v. Clark, 38 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin,......