Case ID: sw_280/html/1079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BAKER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JACKSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9998.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 24, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>394 — Bill of exceptions to refusal to suppress testimony of officer, and dismiss ease on ground that building, in which liquor was found, was private residence, held to show no error. .
    Bill of exceptions to refusal to suppress anticipated testimony of officers and dismiss case on ground that former store building, in which liquor was found by them, was private residence because members of defendant’s family slept in it, and that officers were not authorized to search it, held to show no error.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>956(l) — Bill of exceptions to refusal to permit accused, on motion for new trial, to introduce testimony as to reputation and credibility of state witness, held to present no error.
    Bill of exceptions to refusal to permit accused, on motion for new trial, to introduce testimony as to reputation and credibility of state witness, held to present no error.
    3. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>226 — • Bill complaining of refusal to permit accused to testify that officers frequently searched premises without finding liquor before successful search held to disclose no error.
    In prosecution for possessing liquor for sale, bill complaining of refusal to permit accused to testify that officers frequently searched accused’s premises without finding liquor before date of successful search disclosed no error.
    4. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>238(2).
    Whether accused was connected with liquor found on his premises, or knew it was there, held for jury.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;>l 159(3).
    Court of Criminal Appeals cannot interfere with jury’s finding of fact on conflicting evidence.
    Commissioners’. Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Harrison County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
    Artie Jackson, Sr., was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. T. Dyttleton, of Marshall, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Dyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeek, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

Appellant was convicted in tlie district court of Harrison county for tlie offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for tlie purpose of sale, and Ms punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record discloses that the officers found in the building formerly used as a store building, on the premises of the appellant and near his residence, a gallon and a half or two gallons of whisky. The state’s evidence was to the effect that the appellant, just previous to the officer’s locating said whisky, had sold to one of the staters witnesses, Perry, a drink of said whisky, and received therefor 25 cents. The appellant denied any knowledge of the whisky being on said premises, and sought to show, from circumstances and otherwise, that same had just been recently left there without his knowledge by the said witness Perry. It was further contended by the appellant that said building was being used by some of the members of his family at said time for sleeping purposes, and came within the definition of a private residence, and that the testimony introduced by the state was unwarranted on account of not showing the proper authority for said officers’ testimony relative to the discovery of the whisky in question in said house. This is a sufficient statement of the facts for this opinion.

Bill 1 complains of the action of the court in refusing to sustain his motion to suppress the anticipated testimony of state’s witnesses, and to dismiss the case, because it is alleged that said building was a private residence, and said officers, the state’s witnesses, were without lawful authority to search said premises. There is no error shown in this bill.

Bill No. 2 complains of the refusal of the court to give his special charges, 1 to 6, inclusive. This bill as presented shows no error, and the record in our opinion discloses that the trial judge properly charged the jury on all phases of the ease raised by the testimony, in connection with the special charge given at the request of the appellant.

Bill of exception S also complains of the action of the court' in permitting the state to introduce testimony, through the officers Ezell and Glasscock, relative to finding the whisky in question, but, as presented and qualified by the court, said bill shows no error.

Bill 4 complains of the action of the court, on motion for new trial, in refusing to permit the appellant to introduce testimony relative to the reputation and credibility of the state’s witness: Perry. This bill, as presented, shows no error in the ruling of the court thereon.

Bill 5 complains of the action of the court in refusing to permit the appellant to testify that the officers, prior to the time in question, had frequently searched his premises and never found intoxicating liquor prior to the date in question. Said bill fails to disclose any error in the action of the court thereon.

We find on examination of this record that there is no question but that whis-ky was found on the premises of the appellant, as contended by the state, but the real issue was whether or not the appellant was connected in any manner therewith, or knew same was there located. If the state’s witnesses are to be believed, the appellant was guilty, and, if the appellant’s evidence and his witnesses are to be believed, he was innocent. This was a question of fact purely for the jury, which was decided adversely to the appellant, and, under such circumstances as here presented, this court is unauthorized to interfere with the finding of the jury thereon.

After a careful examination of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered. ■

PER OURIAM. 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. 
      «g^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes