From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McQueen v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 3, 1942
162 S.W.2d 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942)

Opinion

No. 22145.

Delivered June 3, 1942.

1. — Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence.

In order to sustain a conviction for the unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, it is necessary that the testimony show that the county in which the offense was allegedly committed was a dry area, within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act.

2. — Same.

Where the statement of facts contained no proof showing that the county, in which the alleged offense was committed, was a dry area, within the meaning of the Liquor Control Act, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for the unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area.

Appeal from County Court of Runnels County. Hon. E. C. Grindstaff, Judge.

Appeal from conviction for the unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area; penalty, fine of $150.00.

Reversed and remanded.

The opinion states the case.

Paul Petty, of Ballinger, for appellant.

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


The offense is the unlawful possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $150.00.

In order to sustain a conviction for the offense charged, it is necessary that the testimony show that Runnels County is a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act. The statement of facts contains no such proof. The evidence is, therefore, insufficient to support the conviction. See: Gribble v. State, 115 S.W.2d 962, 134 Tex.Crim. R.; Gribble v. State, 111 S.W.2d 276, 133 Tex.Crim. R.; Hardy v. State, 113 S.W.2d 918, 133 Tex. Cr. 619; Baldridge v. State, 106 S.W.2d 700, 132 Tex.Crim. R.; Humphreys v. State, 99 S.W.2d 600, 131 Tex.Crim. R.; Green v. State, 101 S.W.2d 241, 131 Tex.Crim. R.; Cunningham v. State, 102 S.W.2d 413, 132 Tex.Crim. R.; Stewart v. State, 102 S.W.2d 416, 132 Tex.Crim. R..

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.


Summaries of

McQueen v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 3, 1942
162 S.W.2d 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942)
Case details for

McQueen v. State

Case Details

Full title:B. U. McQUEEN v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Jun 3, 1942

Citations

162 S.W.2d 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942)
162 S.W.2d 703

Citing Cases

O'Rear v. State

In the absence of such proof, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. See McQueen v. State,…