Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HORACE ODOM v. THE STATE.

Intoxicating Liquor — Possession — Indictment.

Since the amendment of the first and second called session of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, the indictment in question must charge that the possession of intoxicating liquor was for the purpose of sale, and where this was not the case, the judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed.

HAWKINS, JUDGE.

Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging the possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year confinement in the penitentiary.

The prosecution was begun under the law as it existed prior to the amendment of the 1st and 2d Called Sessions of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, page 233. By that amendment the possession of intoxicating liquor, to be a violation of the law, must be so possessed for the purpose of sale. Under many cases heretofore decided since the amendment in question this court has held that the indictment in the present form does not charge a violation of the present law.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ODOM v. THE STATE
(Apr 26, 1922)