Case ID: sw2d_2/html/0251-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DILLON v. STATE.
    (No. 11316.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 25, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;4l9, 420(12) — Recitals of affidavit and search warrant based thereon held hearsay.
    In a prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, recitals of affidavit and search warrant based thereon held hearsay.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;1169(1) — Admission in liquor prosecution of search warrant and supporting affidavit held obviously harmful.
    In a prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, where question of guilt was vigorously contested, admission of search warrant and its supporting affidavit containing hearsay recitals held reversible error, obviously being harmful.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County ; Homer L. Pharr, Judge.
    J. W. Dillon was convicted of the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Vickers, Cámpbell & Sehenck, of Lubbock, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Over the objection of appellant, the affidavit and search warrant based thereon were introduced in evidence. It is appellant’s contention that the statements in said instruments to the effect that he had been instrumental in selling intoxicating liquor were hearsay. There seems to have been no issue upon which the contents of the affidavit and search warrant were relevant. The statements were hearsay and therefore inadmissible. The question of guilt was vigorously contested by appellant. Sucb being the case and the statements being obviously harmful to appellant, their improper receipt in evidence constituted reversible error. Bryant v. State, 94 Tex. Or. R. 67, 250 S. W. 169; Gaunce v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 365, 261 S. W. 577.

For the error discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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. 
      ®=»Por other cases see same topic and KEY-HUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes