Case ID: sw_296/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMCRE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KELSEY v. STATE.
    (No. 10971.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 15, 1927.
    Criminal law <&wkey;l 174(1) — Permitting jury to smell liquor introduced held harmless error, where undisputed testimony showed that contents of jar was whisky.
    Permitting jury to smell liquor introduced in evidence held harmless error, where number of witnesses had testified to fact that contents of jar in question was whisky and no one controverted that fact.
    Appeal District Court, Eastland County; Elzo Been, Judge.
    E. E. Kelsey was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he. appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Chastain & Judkins and M. E. Lawrence, all of Eastland, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMCRE, J.

Conviction of transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

We find no brief on file for the appellant. The record contains but one bill of exceptions, which complains of the fact that the jar of liquor introduced in evidence was handed to the jury, who passed the same from one to the other and smelled its contents. Such conduct is condemned in Reid v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 512, 271 S. W. 625, in which case, however, we held that such improper circumstance would not call for a reversal, there being no showing of the fact that the jury received or appropriated any improper testimony as a result. In the instant case a number of witnesses testified to the fáet that the contents of the jar in question was whisky. No one eontrovert.ed that fact. Appellant appears to have offered n.o testimony.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.