Opinion

McGee v. State

112 Tex. Crim. 450
17 S.W.2d 50
1928 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 887

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed: Oct 31, 1928
Status: Published
Author: Morrow
On the bench: Lattimore, Morrow, Hawkins
Cited by: 7 cases
Authority: More cited than 1.4%

The opinion

CONCURRING OPINION.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— I think that the averment in the indictment charging the sale of liquor to Albert Bodine is supported by the proof that it was sold to Albert Bodine, together with Roy Bodine and Perry Jeanes, under the circumstances set out in. the opinion. In other words, on the facts stated I think there was no variance. See Ryan v. State, 32 Texas, 280 ; Parker v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep. 334 ; Asher v. State,

277

S. W. 1103 . If the indictment charged a sale to Albert Bodine, Roy Bodine and Perry Jeanes and the proof had shown a sale to only one of them, there would have been a variance. See Price v. State, 202 S. W. Rep. 948 , 83 Texas Crim. Rep. 332 ; Brown v. State, 102 Texas Crim. Rep. 54 .

I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.

Concurring opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.