Case ID: sw_268/html/0754-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TAYLOR v. STATE.
    (No. 8201.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 4, 1925.)
    Intoxicating liquors ©=>224 — Refusal to charge that jury must find beyond reasonable doubt . that liquor was not for medicinal purposes held error.
    In prosecution for manufacturing liquor, defense being that it was for medicinal purposes only, charge .that burden of proof thereof was on accused, and refusal of special charge that jury must find beyond reasonable doubt that liquor was not for medicinal purposes, held, error, as burden must be held discharged when evidence raises reasonable doubt.
    Appeal from District Court, Milam County; John Watson, Judge.
    Henry Taylor was convicted of the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Chambers, Wallace & Gillis, of Cameron, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Milam county of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The charge in the indictment is the manufacture of spirituous, etc., liquor containing more than 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume. The proof showed, by analysis of the state chemist, the liquor made by appellant contained more than 10 per cent, of alcohol by volume. The defensive theory was that it was made for medicinal purposes only, and in support thereof appellant proved that he had been in bad health, and was making and using' various medicines trying to get relief. In his charge to the jury the court told them that if they believed the liquor was made for' medicine to acquit, but that the burden was on appellant to so show. Appellant excepted to this part of the court’s charge, and asked a special charge, in effect telling the jury that if they found he had made the liquor in question, but were not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not made for medicinal purposes, they should acquit. We believe this charge should have been given. Jones v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 332, 257 S. W. 895; Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 266 S. W. 155. Granting that the burden may be. on one shown to have made forbidden liquor in a proper case, to bring himself within one of the excepted purposes (Evans v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 646, 241 S. W. 148; Harris v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 248 S. W. 56; Lott v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 630, 251 S. W. 1070), still, that burden must be held discharged-when the evidence raises in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt on the question.

We think the refusal of the special charge such error as must call for a reversal of the judgment; and it is so ordered.