Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

356 S.W.2d 320

Procell v. State

Decided April 18, 1962

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1973

1 state decisions

Relies on Burton v. State · Hargiss v. State · Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-04-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

¶1The offense is the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $250.

¶2The information alleges that the sale was made in Nacogdoches County, a dry area.

¶3The state concedes that there is no proof that said County was a dry area, without which the conviction cannot stand. Hargiss v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 339 S.W.2d 538; Smith v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 264 S.W.2d 106; Brown v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 3, 117 S.W.2d 107.

¶4The state’s brief also points out that there is no proof of the sale except by a statement of the appellant before a grand jury.

¶5The evidence being insufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

/356/sw2d/320 · .json · Public domain