Case ID: sw_237/html/0918-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MO-RRDW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DODD v. STATE.
    (No. 6704.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 22, 1922.)
    1. Criminal law ■@=419, 420(2)—'Testimony of witness to Identify written eonfessionirwit-nessed by him held admissible.
    Where a written confession was introduced in evidence, the admission of testimony of a witness to the confession who did not relate any facts stated by the defendant, but merely identified the confession offered in evidence as the one which he witnessed, was proper.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <@=239(2)—Refusal to charge as to defendant’s possession of equipment for manufacturing liquor held proper.
    In a prosecution for unlawful manufacture of liquor and unlawful possession of equipment for manufacturing, where the court withdrew the charge as to unlawful possession of equipment, and defendant’s confession and circumstances were sufficient to establish the offense, and reliance was not had alone upon defendant’s possession of a still, a refusal to charge that, if the equipment in his possession was not sufficient for the purpose of manufacturing liquor, to acquit him, was proper.
    Appeal from District Court, San Augustine County; V. li. Stark, Judge.
    Miles Dodd was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquors, and lie-appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. T. Anderson and Jno. F. McLaurin, both of San Augustine, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MO-RRDW, P. J.

Conviction is for unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor. Punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

[1] We deem it unnecessary to rehearse the evidence ; suffice it to say that it is adequate to support the judgment.

The written confession containing all the requisites of the statute pertaining to a confession made by one under arrest, which was witnessed by K. W. Stephenson and J. W. Haygood, was introduced in evidence. Hay-good was called as a witness and identified the confession as the one made to the district attorney in accordance with its recitals. The complaint of his testimony was not tenable. It did not purport to relate any fact stated by appellant, but merely identified the confession offered in evidence as the one which he witnessed.

The indictment, in addition to the count charging the unlawful manufacture, charges the unlawful possession of equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The court in its charge limited the jury to the consideration of the count charging the unlawful manufacturo and withdrew the other count from their consideration. Reliance was not had alone upon the possession of the still to prove that the appellant had unlawfully manufactured intoxicating liquor. His confession and the circumstances were sufficient to establish the offense. It would not, therefore, have been proper to have given the charge requested by the appellant to the effect that, if the equipment in his possession was not sufficient for the purpose of manufacturing liquor, he must be acquitted.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <g=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes