111 SW2D 717 - Stansbury v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1992

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

¶2In their motion for rehearing appellants insist that the information and complaint are bad because of the absence of an averment that they were not licensed under the certificate system of horse racing allowable at the time of the act complained’of under article 655a, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., Acts 1933, 43d Leg., 1st C.S.,,p. 32, ch. 10, as amended.

¶3We are not impressed that the suggestion is meritorious. Much has been written upon the subject of when the necessity arises for negativing exceptions in charging an offense, and it may be admitted that some confusion and conflicts are found in the decisions. The last time we had occasion to consider the question at length was in the case of Baker v. State, 106 S.W.2d 308, ’in which many cases were reviewed. If appellants were the holders of a license under the “certificate system” and the act complained of was one under such plan and done at a’, place, allowed thereunder, it would have been a defense to the present ‘ prosecution, but we see no necessity for such negative averments in the information and complaint as contended for by appellants.

¶4The motion .for rehearing is- overruled.