Whitehead v. State

<p>1.—Occupation—Selling Intoxicating Liquors—Local Option—Indictment,</p> <p>In a prosecution for pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, where the indictment complied with approved precedent, there was no error, and the same was not insufficient for alleging; after setting out the two sales to the alleged purchasers, that the defendant also sold to other persons to the grand jurors unknown. Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting.</p> <p>2. —Same—Evidence—Occupation.—Allegation and Proof.</p> <p>Under an indictment alleging at least two sales to persons named therein and other sales to persons to the grand jurors unknown, and alleging the unlawful occupation of selling intoxicating liquors, etc., all evidence which will tend to show that defendant was pursuing that occupation is admissible, and it is not necessary to allege in the indictment any of the evidence relied upon to prove that he was guilty of pursuing such unlawful occupation. Following Fitch v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 366.</p> <p>3. —Same—Other Sales—Evidence.</p> <p>It is required under the law, in prosecutions of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, that two sales within three years to persons named must be alleged and proved, but proof of other sales are admissible if they tend to show that defendant was pursuing such occupation.</p> <p>4. —Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, the persons alleged as purchasers in the indictment denied such purchase, and the State then introduced testimony showing that defendant sold whisky to one of these persons on one occasion and to the other alleged purchaser on another occasion, without proving some other facts or circumstances showing that defendant pursued such occupation, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.</p> <p>5. —Same—Evidence—Detective—Bias of Witness.</p> <p>Where a witness was employed to assist in catching violators of the local option law, the defendant being charged with pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, it was error not to permit the defendant to show that such witness was so engaged by the officers, in order to show his bias.</p> <p>6. —Same—Defendant’s Absence from Trial.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, the defendant, while his counsel was engaged in addressing the jury, stepped outside of the courtroom into a closet and absented himself from the courtroom for three or ten minutes, returning while his counsel was still speaking, and no notice was taken of his absence either by the court or any officer thereof and no injury was shown, there was no reversible error.</p>