Case ID: sw_286/html/0988-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": ". BAKER, J. PER CURIAM. HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BENNETT v. STATE.
    (No. 10110.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 28, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Oct 6, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law .<@=>459.
    Objection to testimony that still smelled sour like mash and that coil smelled like it had been used in cooking whisky, on ground that witnesses were not qualified as experts, held to go to its weight rather than its admissibility.
    2. Criminal law <@=>l 169(9).
    Admission of testimony that still smelled like mash and coil smelled like it had been used in cooking whisky, if error, held not prejudicial in prosecution for possessing equipment for manufacturing liquor.
    3. Criminal law <@=>459.
    Witness held qualified to testify that equipment found on defendant’s premises could be assembled and used for making liquor, though he had never made whisky himself, but had seen it made.
    4. Criminal law <@=>693.
    Failure to object, at time of admission, to evidence of search of defendant’s premises after his removal therefrom, held waiver of right to object.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Intoxicating liquors <@=>236(19).
    Evidence held to sustain conviction for possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; Irwin T. Ward, Judge.
    A1 Bennett was convicted of unlawfully possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. B. Featherston, of Fort Worth, and F. E. Johnson, of Cleburne, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   . BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Johnson county for the offense of unlawfully possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record discloses that the state’s witnesses J. D. Crawford and J. W. Booth, deputy sheriffs, searched the premises of the appellant and found buried in his back yard a copper still, and in his house a gas stove with four or six burners, and on said premises a coil. It was the contention of the state that the appellant had said equipment for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and the state introduced evidence tending to show that said still and coil had the odor of sour mash and the appearance of having been used for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The appellant defended upon the ground that he knew nothing of the coil found in the cow shed, and that his wife claimed the still and had told him the day prior to the search of the premises by the officers that she put the still there, and further testified that the still belonged to his wife, and that he knew nothing about it being on the premises until she so informed him, as above stated.

The record discloses seven bills of exception. Bills 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 complain of the action of ■ the court in permitting the state’s witnesses to testify, over appellant’s objections; that -the still or boiler in question smelled sour, like mash, and that the coil smelled like it had been used in cooking whisky; appellant’s objections being based upon, the ground that the witnesses were not qualified as experts to testify relative to said matter. We think the objections urged to this testimony went more to the weight than to the admissibility of the testimony, and, should we be in error in so holding, the admission of same could not possibly have injured the appellant.

By bill of exceptions No. 2 complaint is made to the action of the court in permitting the witness Crawford to testify, over appellant’s objection, that the equipment found on said premises could be assembled and used for making intoxicating liquor. The objection urged to this testimony was that the witness was not qualified as an expert. The record discloses that the witness testified that he had never made any whisky himself, but that he had seen it made, and we are of the opinion that no error is shown in the admission of this testimony.

Bill No. 7 complains of the action of the court in permitting the sheriff, Moreland, and the deputy sheriff, Roberts, to testify that, about 10 days after the still and equipment in question had been found on appellant’s premises, and after he (appellant) had removed therefrom, they again examined said premises and found a trapdoor in one of the rooms and a barrel buried in the ground with two or three gallons of mash therein. This bill shows that there was no objection urged to said testimony when it was admitted, and that appellant, through his counsel, raised the question for the first time in his motion for a new trial, insisting that same was fundamental error. We are unable to agree with this contention, and are constrained to hold that appellant waived his right to object to the admission of said testimony by failing to object to same at the time it was offered.

After a careful examination of the entire record, and finding no error therein, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

In view of appellant’s motion, we have again examined the bills of exceptions, and believe the questions of law raised by them were properly disposed of in the original opinion. The point is now made that the statement of witnesses to the effect that the equipment found could be assembled for the manufacture of whisky was not justified, because no condenser was discovered, and for this reason the insufficiency of the evidence is urged. We quote from the testimony of one witness the following:

“That coil we had could have been connected directly with that horn without the interference of any lead pipe, but then on this still there was a hole there and the pipe, or the horn they call it, run off there, and then there was a little thing about that long, some call them a thump-er and some call them a condenser, and the horn connected with that, and the coil connected in at the bottom of that. A person could take the things we found there and hook them up together, and, if he had the mash, he could make whisky with it.”

Believing the evidence amply sufficient, the motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <@=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes