Case ID: sw2d_180/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, Judge. HAWKINS, Presiding Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEARMAN v. STATE.
    No. 22827.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 19, 1944.
    Rehearing Denied May 24, 1944.
    James Ingram, of Houston, for appellant.
    Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by a majority of the Court.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge

(dissenting).

My views in regard to the question were expressed in a dissenting opinion in Anderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 172 S.W.2d 310, and are adhered to; therefore I dissent in the present case.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant bases his motion for rehearing upon the proposition that the only evidence which sustained the conviction was appellant’s statement to the officers that he had been selling wine and whisky; that such statement was an extrajudicial confession which standing alone would not support a conviction. The evidence shows that a witness was present’ when the officers searched appellant’s house and arrested him, and that this witness told the officers in appellant’s presence that he had sold the witness a drink of wine for twenty-five cents. It is true that upon the trial appellant denied this, and also denied admitting sales to the officers, and claimed that he had the'liquor for his personal use.. The officers found 157 bottles of wine, each containing ⅜ of a quart, and eight ½ pint bottles of whisky. The quantity of liquor on hand was enough to cast suspicion upon appellant’s claim that he had it for his own personal use, and supported the truthfulness of his admission that he had been selling it.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

It is not to be understood that in writing this opinion for the court the writer in any way recedes from the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Anderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 172 S.W.2d 310.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.