Case ID: sw_290/html/0768-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HEITMAN v. STATE.
    (No. 10095.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 2, 1927.)
    1. Criminal law <g=3|099(l I) — Statement of facts, not authenticated by judge, cannot be considered.
    Statement of facts cannot be considered by appellate court, where it is not authenticated by trial judge.
    2. Criminal law <®=ol 111 (3) — Search warrant for claimed private dwelling, based on affidavit of one affiant, held not shown illegal, in view of judge's qualification of bill of exception (Pen. Code J925, art. 691).
    Search warrant, based on affidavit by one affiant, held not shown to be issued in violation of Pen. Code 1925, art. 691, requiring two affiants for search of private dwelling, where statement of facts could not be considered and judge’s qualification of bill of exception stated that house, where still was found, was used for purpose other than private residence.
    3.Searches and seizures ®^>3(4) — Search warrant for premises other than private dwelling may be based on affidavit of one witness.
    To search premises other than private dwelling, search warrant may be based on affidavit of one witness.
    Appeal from District Court, Et. Bend County; M. S. Munson, Judge.
    John Heitman was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. H. Chernosky, of Houston, for appel laut.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Manufacturing intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The document, indorsed “statement of facts,” is not authenticated uy the trial judge and for that reason cannot be considered.

There are several bills of exceptions addressed to the receipt in evidence of the testimony of the officers touching the result of a search made upon the premises of the appellant. The only attack upon the search warrant which it is deemed necessary to notice, is that in which complaint is' made that the search intended and made was or a private dwelling, and that it does not conform to the statute (article 691, P. C. 1925), in that the affidavit was made by but one affiant. Tbe testimony was to tbe effect that a still in operation and in tbe manufacture of intoxicating liquor was found in a little bouse adjacent to tbe residence of John Heitman. As stated above, we cannot consider the statement of facts for the reason that it is not authenticated, and we are therefore not informed, save as shown by the bills of exceptions, to what use the premises were put. Appended to each of the bills is an explanation or qualification by the trial judge. These bills were accepted in this form, and the qualification is in the following language:

“The little house where the still was found was not part of the residence and was being used for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, a purpose other than as a private residence.”

In this state of the record, we are not in a position to say that the warrant was issued or executed in violation of the statute mentioned. To search premises other than a private dwelling, the search warrant may be based upon tbe affidavit of one witness.

Prom wbat has been said, it follows that the bills do not show that the evidence, of which complaint is made, was improperly received.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <S=oE'or other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes