Lawrence v. StateLawrence v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Beauchamp
Lead Opinion
Thе appeal is from a conviction fоr the possession of liquor for the purpose of sale, with a fine of $400.00.
The State’s Attorney has filed the following brief in this cause:
“Appеllant was charged by complaint and informаtion in the County Court of Grayson County, Texas, with the offense of possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area. The State estаblished by its evidence that certain officеrs, armed with a search warrant, searched appellant’s premises on the 14th day оf March, 1947, and recovered fourteen рints of assorted whisky.
“The appellant offеred no evidence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and assessed appellant’s punishmеnt at a fine of $400.00.
“By proper allegation in the complaint and information, the Statе pled that Grayson County was a dry area, but we find no evidence in the record proving оr tending to prove that said county was a dry area. We submit that it was incumbent upon the State to not only allege but to prove, if it could, that Gray-son County was a dry area. See Trаpp v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 235, 167 S. W. (2d) 525; Brown v. State, 117 S. W. (2d) 107; Sweeten v. State, 120 S. W. (2d) 1074; Phariss v. State, 126 S. W. (2d) 981.
“The State therefore respectfully submits that said cause should be reversed and remanded.”
The suggestion is justified by the record. It was incumbent upon the State to makе out its case, which it did not do.
The judgment of the triаl court is reversed and the cause is remаnded.
Addendum
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
KRUEGER, Judge.*623 The State has filed a motion for a rehearing which is accompanied by a suрplemental statement of facts supplying the omissions from the one originally filed, which omissions therein resulted in a reversal of the judgment of conviction.
It has been the consistent holding of this Court that a statement of facts сould not be amended or supplementеd by either party after the record has rеached the appellate court. The original statement of facts was examined by the county attorney as well as by the аttorney for appellant and was agrеed to by both parties which was apprоved by the trial court as a true and complete statement of the facts provеn on the trial. We do not doubt the correctness of the State’s contention that it was stipulated at the beginning of the trial that Grayson County was a dry area, however, we are not authorized to consider the supplemental statement of facts. See Weeks v. State, 134 Tex. Cr. R. 69 (113 S. W. (2d) 532) ; and McConnell v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 409 (212 S. W. 498).
The State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.