Case ID: sw_280/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STEPHENSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9789.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 3, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied March 10, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;-l 169(11) — Requiring one accused of unlawfuiiy possessing intoxicating liquor to state if he was under indictment in federal court was not error, where full testimony on this was given by another without objection.
    In prosecution for unlawful possession of liquor, requiring accused to answer question if he was not under indictment in federal court for unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor was not error, where full testimony was given on this subject without defendant’s objection.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. intoxicating liquors <@=>223(3).
    Under indictment for unlawful possession-for sale of spirituous, vinous, malt, and intoxicating liquor capable of producing intoxication, evidence that beer possessed was intoxicating was sufficient.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Nuec-es County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.
    R. L. Stephenson was convicted of unlawful possession of liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    M. 0. Nelson, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is unlawful possession of liquor, and the punishment is one year in the penitentiary.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict, and the record contains no. objections to the charge of the court. The only bill of exceptions contained in.the record complains at the court’s action in permitting the state to ask the defendant on-cross-examination if he is not under indictment in the federal court for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and in requiring the defendant to answer said question to the effect that there was another case pending against him in the federal court. The only objection offered to this testimony was that the other indictment against the defendant is a matter that has no hearing whatever on the case on trial, and .defendant further objected on the grounds that another indictment in another court might mean that he was guilty, or might mean that he was not guilty, and could not be used as evidence.

The court qualifies this bill by stating that the clerk of the federal court at Corpus Christi testified fully on this subject without any objection from the defendant. We fail to discern any error under this condition of this record.

Finding no error in the -record, the judgment is in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

There were found in the possession of the appellant 23 bottles of beer. The evidence, including the admission made in open court, shows that the “beer” was intoxicating. It is urged that this is insufficient in that it fails to show the liquid to be spirituous, vinous, and malt liquor. The indictment charged that the appellant possessed for the purpose of sale spirituous, vinous, malt, and intoxicating liquor capable of producing intoxication. The precedents are contrary to the contention of the appellant. See Tucker v. State, 251 S. W. 1090, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 505; Travinio v. State, 242 S. W. 242, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 140; Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. 1925, vol. 1, pp. 438, 439.

As stated in the original opinion, the hill complaining of the receipt in evidence of the prosecution in the federal court is not ground for reversal, in view of the fact that the same was shown by other uncontroverted evidence.

The motion for, rehearing is overruled. 
      <S=»For other cases see same tonic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes