Case ID: sw_280/html/0777-01.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

STERLING v. STATE.
    (No. 9886.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 10, 1926.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <$=»236(6'/2).
    Evidence held to sustain conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for sale.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;H84.
    Where indictment charged possession of liquor for sale, and verdict was responsive thereto, error in adjudging defendant guilty of transportation will be reformed.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County ; J. D. Campbell, Judge.
    Jerry Sterling was convicted for possessing intoxicating liquor for sale, and he appeals.
    Judgment reformed and affirmed.
    Leslie E. Eason, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    ■Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of salé.

No objection was made to the court’s charge submitting the ease to the jury, and the record contains no bills of exception complaining of the reception or exclusion of evidence, nor to any' other procedure during the trial.

Officers were on watch at a particular place near the river on a mission not connected with appellant. While there, one of the officers observed appellant and another party in a small boat transferring whisky from large containers into pint and half-pint bottles, using a funnel in the process. When they observed the officers had detected them, they begun to break the bottles containing the liquor, and threw some of them in the water before the officers could get to them. The whisky amount to something like two gallons. The evidence amply sustains the verdict.

The indictment contained many counts, but the only one submitted charged possession of the liquor for the purpose of sale. The verdict was responsive to this charge. However, in entering judgment appellant was adjudged guilty of transporting the liquor. In this error the sentence followed the judgment. The judgment and sentence will be reformed adjudging appellant to be guilty of possessing the whisky for the purpose of sale.

As thus reformed, the judgment is affirmed.