Case ID: sw_300/html/0061-01.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

CARTER v. STATE.
    (No. 11187.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 23, 1927.
    Criminal law <&wkey;»394 — Evidence as to result of search held inadmissible, where affidavit for search warrant was defective in failing to show probable cause (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 4a, 727a).
    Evidence as to result of search of defendant’s residence and premises held inadmissible, where affidavit for seareh.warrant was defective in not setting out facts from which issuing magistrate could determine whether probable cause existed for issuing warrant, under Code Or. Proc. 1925, arts. 4a, 727a.
    Appeal from District Court, Jones County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
    R. A. Carter was convicted for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Lon A. Brooks, of Anson, for appellant.
    .Clem Calhoun, Dist. Atty., of Abilene, and A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment is two years in the penitentiary.

Officers made an affidavit and procured a search warrant under which they searched the private residence and premises of appellant. Upon the search a quantity of intoxicating liquor was found in the residence. Near the residence, and upon premises of .appellant, an outfit for making beer and a large quantity of the finished product were also found. The affidavit which was the basis of the search warrant was made upon “information and belief.” No facts were stated in the affidavit showing what information the officers had received, and no other facts were set out from which the. issuing magistrate could judicially determine whether “probable cause existed” authorizing the warrant to be issued. Because of such defect in the affidavit, evidence of the officers as to the result of their search was objected to. The objection should have been sustained. Articles 4a and 727a, C. C. P. (1925); Chapin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 296 S. W. 1095; Stokes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 296 S. W. 1108; Peppers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 296 S. W. 1109; Green v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 296 S. W. 1109.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.