# Vaughn v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 12, 1930 · 116 Tex. Crim. 230

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3952162

## Case

- **Full name:** Claude Vaughn v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 12, 1930
- **Citations:** 116 Tex. Crim. 230; 34 S.W.2d 877; 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 718
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Morrow
- **Judges:** Christian, Morrow
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3952162

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The evidence is challenged as insufficient to show that the liquid transported by the appellant was intoxicating. Two witnesses, who claimed to have knowledge of the
*232
odor, taste and appearance of whisky, testified that the liquid transported by the appellant was whisky. They saw the fruit jars as they were broken, examined some of the liquid in the lid of a broken jar and also on paper on which the liquid had been spilled, smelled the ground where the jars had been broken which was wet from the liquid, and stated that they knew it was whisky. Reliance was not had upon the odor alone, but upon other circumstances quite in line with the decided cases on the sufficiency of the proof. See Cathey v. State, 252 S. W. 534 ; Kellum v. State, 278 S. W. 434 ; Yarbrough v. State, 12 S. W. (2d) 803 ; Vaughn v. State, 28 S. W. (2d) 148 .
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3952162. Public record. Not legal advice.