Case ID: sw_287/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JONES v. STATE.
    (No. 10157.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 6, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1926.)
    .Criminal iaw t&wkey;>553 — Conviction for selling liquor is not to be disturbed because witness claiming to have toid officer immediately after his arrest that he purchased liquor from defendant was shown to have denied such purchase at first.
    Testimony by witness that he informed officer immediately after his arrest- that he purchased liquor in his possession from defendant is not rendered insufficient to sustain conviction for selling liquor by testimony of officer that witness at first denied having purchased liquor from defendant.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; J. D. Campbell, Judge.
    Anderson Jones was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    F. G. Vaughn, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s .Atty., of Austin! and Eobt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is foi* selling inT toxicating liquor; punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

Brown, the alleged purchaser, testified on the trial that he purchased whisky from appellant ; that it was in two soda pop bottles. An officer arrested him shortly after the purchase and found the two bottles of whisky in his possession. Brown also testified that he immediately told the officer where he got it'. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence because the officer testified that Brown first denied knowing from whom he got the whisky and claimed to have gotten it at a place other than appellant’s, and did not divulge appellant as the seller until the patrol wagon approached.

We think the record shows no such casé as would warrant this court in disturbing the jury’s settlemen't of the issue of fact in favor of the state. Mertel v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 259 S. W. 579; Hill v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 290, 269 S. W. 90; Kyle v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 554, 270 S. W. 1020, cited by appellant in support of his contention, are based' on facts so different from those in the present case we do not regard them as controlling. :

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <&wkey;>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NTJMBER in all Key-Numbered D-jgests and Indexes