History
  • No items yet
midpage
Scott v. State
102 Tex. Crim. 142
Tex. Crim. App.
1925
Check Treatment

Conviction is for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. Punishment one year in the penitentiary.

It is not necessary to state the facts. They support the finding of the jury. The court instructed the jury upon circumstantial evidence in the form usually employed, omitting, however, to say that the State relied upon circumstantial evidence for a conviction. Exception was reserved to the charge because of said omission. The point is settled against appellant in Pennington v. State, 48 S.W. 507, and Young v. State, 91 Tex.Crim. R., 240 S.W. 930.

The court committed no error in refusing to give the special charge shown in bill of exception number one. Another special charge was given at appellant's request which presented the same issue to the jury more comprehensively than did the one refused.

Finding no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. *Page 143

Case Details

Case Name: Scott v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Nov 18, 1925
Citation: 102 Tex. Crim. 142
Docket Number: No. 9498.
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.