History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lenox v. State
152 S.W.2d 342
Tex. Crim. App.
1941
Check Treatment
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was tried on a charge of maintaining a common nuisance and assessed ninety days in jail with a fine of $100.00.

Appellant timely moved to quash the complaint and information on the ground that it failed to charge an offense against the'law. It is alleged also that the charges are in the disjunctive in that it is alleged that appellant was keeping a place “ * * * where intoxicating liquor, to wit, beer and whisky was kept, possessed and sold or given away * * It further sets out that the complaint and information failed to negative the fact that appellant did not have a license to sell intoxicants. It charges the many items which the statute prohibits and we would be unable to know which offense the appellant would be called on to defend. A guilty man might be in position to choose the one, but our laws presume him to be innocent. The charge must be specific. We think the motion should have been granted. Carr v. State, 104 S. W. (2d) 866; Commander v. State, 143 S. W. (2d) 953.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Case Details

Case Name: Lenox v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jun 11, 1941
Citation: 152 S.W.2d 342
Docket Number: No. 21642
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.