Case ID: sw2d_33/html/1071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOFTIN v. STATE.
    No. 13690.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 12, 1930.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1931.
    Johnson. & Millwee, of Colorado, Tex., for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davids on, State’s At ty., of Austin, for tbe State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

Tbe offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in "the penitentiary for three years.

Operating under a search warrant, an officer searched appellant’s private residence and found therein a large quantity of whis-ky. Tbe state relied for a conviction upon tbe testimony of tbe officer touching tbe result of tbe search. Appellant offered no testimony.

Tbe two bills of exception found in tbe record relate to appellant’s objection to tbe testimony touching tbe result of tbe search; the ground of objection being that tbe affidavit for tbe. search warrant failed to show that appellant’s residence was a place where intoxicating liquor was sold or manufactured. An inspection of tbe affidavit discloses that affiants averred that they bad been informed •by reliable persons that appellant was selling intoxicating liquor, and that a reliable person bad stated to them that be bad purchased intoxicating liquor from appellant at tbe premises described in tbe affidavit. Tbe averment referred to sufficiently complies with tbe demands of article 691, P. C. Antner v. State (Tex. Cr. App;) 25 S.W.(2d) 860.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Tbe foregoing opinion of tbe Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court.

HAWKINS, J., absent.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

Considering tbe motion for rehearing which urges that tbe affidavit for search warrant does not show that tbe private residence of appellant is a place where intoxicating liquor is sold or manufactured, we observe that article 691, P. C., wherein appears tbe above as a requirement, refers to and includes tbe affidavit as a whole, that is, all those things so sworn to by tbe makers of tbe affidavit may be looked to and considered in determining legal sufficiency. We find in tbe third paragraph of tbe affidavit in the case before us, as reflected by tbe bill of exceptions, tbe following: “(3) That they have been informed by reliable persons * * * that A. A. Loftin is selling liquor capable of producing intoxication, * ⅜ ’ ⅜ and that they have had a reliable person to tell them that be has purchased intoxicating liquor from A. A. Loftin, at said above described premises. * ⅜ ⅜ R. E. Gregory, A. D. Kuykendall. Sworn to and subscribed,” etc. This we bold to be a- sufficient showing in the affidavit. Villareal v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 442, 21 S.W.(2d) 739. This we do not think contrary to anything'said in Torres v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 18 S.W.(2d) 179, or Green v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 292, 12 S.W.(2d) 790.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.