Lenox v. State, 22053.

Decision Date08 April 1942
Docket NumberNo. 22053.,22053.
Citation161 S.W.2d 1085
PartiesLENOX v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Walker County Court; A. W. Coker, Judge.

Prince Lenox was convicted for unlawful sale of beer in a dry area, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Reginald Bracewell, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The unlawful sale of beer in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, confinement in the county jail for a term of ninety days.

That appellant sold four cans of beer to an inspector of the Texas Liquor Control Board, in Walker County, a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act, Vernon's Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 1 et seq., as charged in the information, is not disputed. The facts are, therefore, sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Appellant complains of the overruling of his motion to quash the jury panel drawn for the term of court at which he was tried and convicted. The record before us does not reflect that any member of such jury panel served upon the jury which tried and convicted appellant, nor that such jury was selected from or out of the panel to which appellant objected. In the absence of any such showing, the question, therefore, is not deemed before us. McDonald v. State, 97 Tex.Cr. R. 200, 260 S.W. 850.

By bill of exception, complaint is made of the action of the trial court in permitting the State, after having rested its case, and after the appellant had declined to introduce any evidence, to reopen the case and to introduce further and additional testimony. The action of the trial court was in keeping with the statute (Art. 643, C.C.P.) and established precedents cited under said Article in Vernon's Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure.

The complaint and information were valid upon their face and were subject to no objection.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing with an exhaustive discussion on one question by which it is contended that the complaint and information in the case show that the offense alleged, if committed, was barred by the statute of limitation. We note that the information sets forth that the offense was committed on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Harrington v. State, 40849
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 3 Enero 1968
    ......        See also Lenox v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 161 S.W.2d 1085, Stiles v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 603, 183 S.W.2d 567; Wynn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 259 S.W.2d 227; Priest ......
  • Perry v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 3 Febrero 1971
    ...Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., and authorities collated thereunder. See McCullough v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 425 S.W.2d 359, and Lenox v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 161 S.W.2d 1085. No abuse of discretion has been Ground of error number three is overruled. In the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh grounds ......
  • Stiles v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 15 Noviembre 1944
    ...jurors who were present served on the jury that tried appellant. McDonald v. State, 97 Tex.Cr. R. 200, 260 S.W. 850; Lenox v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 161 S.W.2d 1085. Neither does appellant show that any objectionable juror was forced upon him if the jury was selected from the panel compl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT