Case ID: sw_280/html/0785-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORB, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BEARD v. STATE.
    (No. 9879.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 17, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>liil(3).
    Reviewing court is bound by qualifications of trial court, attached to bills of exception, which are accepted by accused.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;394 — Evidence of what was found by officers searching defendant's premises held admissible, where warrant to search premises was exhibited to court (Acts 39th1 Leg. c. 149).
    Evidence of what was found by officers searching defendant’s premises for equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, held admissible, in view of Search and Seizure Act, where warrant to search premises was shown to court though it was not read to jury.
    3. intoxicating liquors <&wkey;>233(2) — Admission of testimony that officers found!, on land adjoining defendant’s premises equipment for making liquor, held! not error, where it did not appear that any one other than defendant was interested therein.
    Admission of officers’ testimony that they found, on land adjoining that of defendant, equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, held not erroneous, where it did not appear that any one other than defendant was interested in such equipment, and he identified same as being under his control.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
    Jim Beard was convicted of possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John Cook, of Mt. Pleasant, and B. B. Sturgeon, of Paris, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORB, J.

Conviction in district court of Titus county for possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

Complaint is made of the failure of the court to give special charges on the law of circumstantial evidence. The court below appears to have fully submitted the law of this issue in the main charge, and we perceive no reason for giving the special charges.

Appellant’s bills of exception Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 relate to the admissibility of evidence of what was found by the officers conducting a search of appellant’s premises. The, contention of appellant is that this testimony was inadmissible under what is called the Search and Seizure Act of the Thirty-Ninth Legislature (Acts 39th Leg. c. 149). The statement of facts in this case reveals .that the officers testified that they did have a search warrant, and that they showed it to appellant’s wife, who was on the premises when they went there, and that she made no objection to what was done by them. The bills of exception above referred to are qualified by the learned trial court by saying that when this proof was offered he stated that he would exclude the testimony unless it was shown that a search warrant was had, and that the search warrant was produced and shown to the court, but was not read to the jury, and that he then permitted the evidence to remain before the jury. Said bills and each of them are accepted by appellant, and must be considered by us in the light of the statements made by the trial court. We are aware of the fact that appellant makes certain contentions before this court in regard to the production and reception by the court of said search warrant, but said matters are not in such shape as that we can consider same. We are bound by the qualifications of the court attached to the bills which are accepted by the accused. As qualified, the bills of exception present no error.

There is a bill of exceptions complaining that the offioers were permitted to test!fy to what they found upon a piece of land adjoining that of appellant. There is nothing in the record to show that any one othei than appellant was interested in the equipment found. His res gestae statements, made regarding same at the time it was found, seem amply sufficient to identify same as being under his control. He seemed to be under the impression that for the possession of such equipment he could only be prosecuted in the federal court.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      tgz^For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes