TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Phillips v. State

S. E. Phillips v. the State

Phillips v. State, 111 S.W. 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 13, 1908
Docket
No. 3651.
Judges
Brooks
Citations
111 S.W. 14453 Tex. Crim. 5051908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 264
Headnotes
Local Option—Sufficiency of Evidence—Date of Offense. Where upon trial of a violation of the local option law the witness for the State manifested some equivocation, but admitted that the date he swore to before the grand jury was probably correct, and the same was subsequent to the time local option went into effect, the conviction was sustained.
Summary
The opinion state the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Brooks

BROOKS, Judge.

This conviction was for violating the local option law, the punishment assessed being a fine of $50 and thirty days imprisonment in the county jail.

The State’s witness, in the first instance, swore that he could not say what month in the fall the sale was made, but when shown his grand jury testimony wherein he swore it was on or about the first of December, 1906, he admitted that it was probably correct. Subsequently there was some equivocation manifested in the testimony of the witness on the matter, but the jury have passed upon it and found that the sale was subsequent to the date the law went into effect, and we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cleveland v. State190 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Cleveland v. State190 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list