Case ID: sw2d_4/html/0082-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HERNANDEZ v. STATE.
    (No. 10711.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 12, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied March 28, 1928.
    1. Searches and seizures <S=w7(8) — Search warrant describing premises as> “rent house on League estate, inside field 200 yards north of branch on League estate,” held to sufficiently describe premises.
    Search warrant describing premises as “rent house on the League estate, inside field 200 yards north of branch on League estate, 5 or 6 miles S. E. Benjamin, Texas,” and reciting' that “Hernandez, Mexican,” was in possession, held to sufficiently describe premises to be searched, and did not violate Const.'art. 1, § 9, or Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 4, 4a, 727a.
    2. Criminal law <⅜=»1092(14) — - Bill of exceptions, wherein objection is not certified to be true as fact, is defective.
    Bill of exceptions, wherein objection sought to be urged appears in bill as a ground of objection only and is nowhere certified to be true as a fact, is defective.
    Appeal from District Court, Knox County; J. H. Milam, Judge.
    Caesado Hernandez was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    James A. Stephens, of Benjamin, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is under conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; the punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

Officers armed with a search warrant found in appellant’s house the things described in the return on the warrant as follows:

“Eive quart fruit jars and one-half gallon jar full of intoxicating liquor, one 10-gallon can used as still to cook, and one copper worm, candy bucket for cooler; about 80 gallons mash we destroyed, keeping sample of mash.”

Three bills of exception are found in the record. They all relate to objections interposed to the search warrant and to evidence given by three officers who were present when the search was made. The warrant described the premises to be searched as a “rent house on the League estate, inside field 200 yar'ds north of branch on League estate, 5 or 6 miles S. E. Benjamin, Texas,” and reciting that “Hernandez, Mexican,” was in possession of the described premises and was keeping it for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The warrant was attacked, first, because of a claimed insufficient description of the' premises to be searched.^ We are of opinion the description of the premises was sufficiently definite. The mandates of the constitution (section 9, art. 1) and Code of Criminal Proc. (articles 4, 4a, and 727a) are not thought to have been infringed upon. Wilson v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 290 S. W. 1103; Story v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 296 S. W. 296. The second objection urged to the warrant as stated in the bill of exception was:

“Because there were three 'or four different ‘Hernandez’ residing on said League estate, and therefore that the search warrant did not designate the defendant.”

The objection thus sought to be urged appears in the bill as a ground of objection only, and is nowhere certified to be true as a fact. In this particular the bill is defective. Savage v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 239 S. W. 945; Smith v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 446, 244 S. W. 522; Plunk v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 265 S. W. 158. Many other cases are collated. under section 209, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C.

From what has been said, it follows that the further objection to receiving the evidence of the officers as to what was found as a result of the search is untenable.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

As we understand appellant’s motion for rehearing, he renews substantially the same questions passed upon in the original opinion. The record contains three bills of exception, each in substance identical, and complaining of similar testimony given by three witnesses; Mr. Melton, the sheriff, Mr. Collins, the constable, and Mr. Gay, a deputy sheriff, being the witnesses referred to. Each bill of exceptions sets out the search warrant and the return of the officer thereon, and appellant’s objAction to the testimony of the witness named. The objection made appears to have been the same in each bill; the same qualification to each bill by the trial court also appears. From the evidence there appears to be at a certain point on the League estate, some 6 miles southeast of Benjamin, Tex., a group of Mexican houses called “Little Mexico” or “Juarez.” The description of the premises to be searched is set out in the original opinion. Appellant seems to insist that to recite that one “Hernandez, a Mexican,” was in possession of the described premises was. insufficient, and he asks us to reconcile the holding, in regard to the name of a defendant accused of crime, that “one Victor, a Mexican,” was insufficient, with our holding in this ease. The case referred to by appellant is Victor v. State, 15 Tex. App. 90. Thé holding in that case was reviewed in Wilcox v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 631, 34 S. W. 958, where the contrary doctrine was laid down and all opposing opinions were overruled. See, also, Cresencio v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 165 S. W. 936. We are still of the opinion that, the description of the property was sufficient to enable the officers to locate and distinguish it from other houses in the little settlement. As we understand this record, the affidavits for search warrant were not attacked.

Being unable to agree with appellant’s contention, the motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      ®=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes