Case Name: PETTY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-01-18
Citations: 2 S.W.2d 857
Docket Number: No. 11307
Parties: PETTY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 2
Pages: 857–859

Head Matter:
PETTY v. STATE.
(No. 11307.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 18, 1928.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 29, 1928.
Lockhart & Garrardl and E. D. Brown, all of Lubbock, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, J.
The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for four years.
Appellant sought a continuance because of the absence of Dr. A. W. Thompson. In order to avoid the continuance, the state made the following admission:
"Now comes the state by her district attorney and admits that,.if the said Dr. A. W. Thompson were present he would testify that he had at various times prescribed whisky for the defendant's wife and for this defendant, and that said whisky was a necessary medicine at all times for defendant's wife and was necessary as a medicine for the defendant himself at the various times prescribed, and as the physician of this defendant's wife he has advised that whisky be kept in this defendant's house at all times for the use of this defendant's wife, and that said testimony is true."
Where defendant presents an application for a continuance for want of the testimony of an absent witness, and state's counsel admits the truth of the facts proposed to be proved by said witness, it is not permissible for the state to subsequently contravene the truth thereof on the trial of the case. Branch's Annotated Penal Code, § 325, p. 191; Roberts v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 62, 143 S. W. 614. Also the jury are bound by the admission, and must consider the testimony of the absent witness to be true. Underhill on Criminal Evidence (3d Ed.) § 425. The burden rested upon the state to show that appellant possessed intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. In attempting to discharge such burden, it was shown that appellant possessed more than a quart of whisky, which had been discovered by officers in his home. There was no evidence of either a sale or of an attempted sale of whisky. Proof of possession of more than a quart of intoxicating liquor is prima facie evidence of possession thereof for the purpose of sale. Article 671, P. C. 1925. "Prima fade" evidence is merely proof upon which the jury may find a verdict, and is not conclusive. Walden v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 584, 272 S. W. 139. Although possession of more than a quart of intoxicating liquor is prima facie evidence of the possession thereof for the purpose of sale, the accused may show legality of possession. Caldwell v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 503, 289 S. W. 411. Possession of intoxicating liquor for medicinal purposes is lawful. Article 668, P. C. 1925. Appellant defended on the ground that he possessed the liquor in question for medicinal purposes. As stated, the state admitted that whisky was a necessary medicine at all times for appellant's wife, and that he hadl been advised by his physician to keep whisky in his home at all times for her use. This admission was conclusive as to the facts embraced. The state was not authorized to controvert it. The jury were bound to accept it as true. In this condition of the record the admission controverted the prima facie case arising from the possession of more than a quart of whisky. This is not to say that the state would, on another trial, be bound by the admission made on the present trial.
In his argument, the county attorney scoffed at the idea that appellant's wife required whisky as a medicine, and, in effect, charged that appellant's defense was fabricated. The qualification appended to the bill of exception preserving the complaint lodged against the argument shows that appellant failed to object to the argument and made no request that the jury be instructed, not to consider it. In this condition of the bill no error is presented. However, the argument was highly improper and would have constituted reversible error if complaint had been made at the time and properly preserved by bill of exception. In the face of the admission here-inbefore discussed, it was improper and prejudicial for the county attorney to controvert in argument or otherwise the facts embraced in said admission.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
PER CUKIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.