Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7730.) |
| Citation | 260 S.W. 864 |
| Parties | SCOTT et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lee County; R. J. Alexander, Judge.
George Scott and Grover Upchurch were convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and they appeal. Affirmed.
J. F. Taulbee, of Georgetown, for appellants.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Appellants were convicted in the district court of Lee county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and their punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The evidence seems ample to support the conviction and shows from the state's standpoint that they transported from a point in Lee county to Georgetown in Williamson county four gallons of whisky. They bought it from a man named Bodkin, and claimed they had it sold for $80.
The indictment is in form which has heretofore often been held by us sufficient, and there was no error in overruling the motion to quash same. A special charge requesting the court to tell the jury that it is unlawful to transport liquor for purposes of sale, and that the jury should acquit if they had a doubt as to whether such was the purpose of the transportation, was properly refused, as were all of the other special charges which appear in the record.
The verdict as originally returned was regarded as informal and was rewritten by the district attorney, and then read to the jury, and the learned trial judge asked them and each of them if that was their verdict, to which they replied, "yes." There was no error in this proceeding. The state witnesses in this case are specifically removed from the character of accomplices by statute.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
The only complaint made is that we failed to discuss the matter of accomplices. The question of accomplices or accomplice testimony was not raised in any way in the trial court. The only way in which we would consider it at this time would be as to the sufficiency of the testimony. In view of the motion we have again examined the record, and find that the conviction is amply supported by the testimony of Bessie Bodkin and her mother, neither of whom appear to have had anything to do with the liquor, the transportation of which constitutes the offense charged against appellants.
The motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Champion v. State
...68 S. W. 683; Fifer v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 203, 141 S. W. 989; Allison v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 56, 263 S. W. 604; Scott v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 260 S. W. 864. In the Robinson Case, supra, the jury returned a verdict finding the accused guilty of theft of $20 and assessed his punish......
-
Shannon v. State
...Am. St. Rep. 702; Fifer v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 203, 141 S. W. 989; Gould v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 421, 147 S. W. 247; Scott v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 260 S. W. 864; Allison v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 56, 263 S. W. A number of exceptions were taken to the charge of the court, none of whi......
-
Briggs v. State
...Article 696, Vernon's C. C. P. (1925), and authorities there cited; Allison v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 56, 263 S. W. 604; Scott v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 260 S. W. 864. On motion for new trial, appellant alleged misconduct of the jury, showing by ex parte affidavits filed with said motion......
-
Mansell v. State, 35066
...without the words inserted by the court. Furthermore, the jury later ratified the verdict after the words were inserted. Scott v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 105, 260 S.W. 864. We have reviewed the authorities cited by appellant and find that in the cases cited, the jury in their verdict found the ......