Case ID: sw_278/html/0852-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TAYLOR v. STATE.
    (No. 9607.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 23, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;364(4) — Incriminating statements at still, while liquor was dripping from coil, admissible as part of res gestae.
    In prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, incriminating statements by accused, when officers went to still and while intoxicating liquor was dripping from coil, held admissible as part of res gestae.
    2. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>236(l9‘) — Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor.
    In prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, evidence showing officers saw still in operation, and watched and observed accused and another engaged in process of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, held sufficient to sustain conviction.
    Appeal from District Court, -Grayson County; E. E. Wilcox, Judge.
    Tom Taylor was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. D. Buster, of Sherman, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Grayson county of the offense of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are two bills of exception in the record, both of which complain of the reception in evidence of answers of a state witness containing incriminating statements made at the time the officers went to the still and while the intoxicating liquor was in process of dripping from the coil. The statements complained of in each bill of exceptions' were admissible as part of the res gestee. The evidence is sufficient to justify the jury’s conclusion of guilt. It is not necessary to set it out at length. Officers saw a still in operation, and watched and observed appellant and another man engaged in the process of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. This was not controverted.

The judgment will be affirmed. 
      cg^mFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes