Robert v. State

<p>1. —Intoxicating Liquors—Recognizance.</p> <p>Where, upon an appeal from a violation of the so-called “Dean Law,” the recognizance was insufficient to confer the jurisdiction upon this Court, the same is dismissed, however, a new recognizance having been filed, which is in proper form, the appeal is re-instated.</p> <p>2. —Same—Constitutional Law—Federal and State Legislation.</p> <p>The constitutionality of the so-called “Dean Prohibition Law” has been upheld, and is not in conflict with the so-called Volstead Act passed by the Congress of the United States. Following Ex Parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Grim. Rep., 529, Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting.</p> <p>3. —Same—Accomplice—Corroboration—Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of a violation of the. so-called Dean Law, the defendant excepted to the court’s failure to instruct the jury with reference to the law of accomplice, and pointed out that the purchasers of the whisky from the defendant were accomplices, the conviction cannot be sustained and there was reversible error.</p> <p>4. —Same—Rehearing—Purchaser of Intoxicating Liquors—Accomplice.</p> <p>By the terms of the so-called “Dean Law,” enacted after the Constitutional amendment to the State Constitution was adopted, the purchaser as well as the seller is made to suffer the penalty for its violation, and it was necessary to charge upon accomplice testimony where- the conviction depended upon the testimony of the purchasers of the intoxicating liquors. Following Franklin v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 342.</p> <p>5. —Same—Confession—Corpus Delicti—Defendant’s Confession.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of a violation of the State prohibition law, the court below failed to charge upon accomplice testimony, the record showing that the State’s witnesses were purchasers of the liquor sold, the conviction could not be sustained, although the defendant confessed the sale of such liquor, inasmuch as the corpus delicti could not be established by the defendant’s confession alone.</p>