Case ID: sw2d_5/html/0145-01.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

MOSELEY v. STATE.
    (No. 11521.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 11, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <S=>780(I)— One manufacturing liquor in conjunction with defendant would be accomplice.
    One manufacturing intoxicating liquor in conjunction with defendant would be an accomplice of latter.
    2. Criminal law <3=»780(2) — Statens witness’ testimony that he and defendant made whis-ky found and were jointly employed by others to do so held to require charge on accomplice testimony.
    Where only state’s witness connecting defendant with whisky found testified that he and defendant made whisky on day officers found it, that he was indicted therefor, and that he and defendant were jointly employed by others to make whisky for them, court should have charged jury on law of accomplice testimony.
    Appeal from District Court, Callahan County; M. S. Long, Judge.
    Hardy Moseley was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    J. Lee Cearley, of Cisco, and Chastain & Judkins, of Eastland, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

Officers found a still and 35 or 40 gallons of whisky in a pasture in Callahan county. The only person found by them anywhere in the neighborhood of said still was a man named Whatley. This man testifies for the state, and is the only witness who in anywise connects appellant with the whisky so found. He testifies that he had been at the still for a number of days and that he and appellant had made the whisky in question on the day before the officers found it. As we understand this record, it falls entirely and almost exactly in line with what we said in Cate v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 611, 272 S. W. 210. If Whatley manufactured such liquor in conjunction with appellant, he would be an accomplice. In fact,' he was indicted, according to his testimony. The indictment against appellant charged him in one count with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor and in another count with its possession. Whatley testified that he and appellant were jointly employed by the Rays, father and son, to make whisky for them. The charge of the court was excepted to for its failure to charge on the law of accomplice testimony. We believe the court should so have charged the jury.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.