Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-10-11
Citations: 245 S.W. 710
Docket Number: No. 7071
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 245
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(No. 7071.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 11, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1922.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;202 — Indictment need not allege purpose of transportation.
Indictment for transportation of intoxicating liquor need not allege transportation was for purpose of sale.
2. intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(2G) — Evidence of transportation held sufficient.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction for transportation of intoxicating liquor.
3. intoxicating liquors <&wkey;438 — Possession when found not necessary to guilt of transportation.
To render defendant guilty of transporting intoxicating liquor, he need not have been in possession of or near it when it was found on a railroad coach.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;829(I8) — Rule entitling accused to have defense presented in an affirmative way held not infringed by refusal of charge in view of charge given.
Where defendant presented no affirmative defense, but simply denied the truth of facts testified to by state’s witness, there was no infringement of the rule that an accused is entitled to have his defense presented in an affirmative way, by refusal of charge to acquit if they believed, or had a reasonable doubt, that a thing which witness said defendant did was done by another; but the defense was fully covered under the general charge of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence.
On Motion for Rehearing.
5.Criminal law <&wkey;f 144(13) — On appeal evidence viewed from staters standpoint.
On appeal from a conviction, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence, it is viewed from the state’s standpoint.
<&wkey;>3Tor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMB1SR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Cale'Johnson was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Wilkinson & Cook, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant. '
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant sought to quash, the indictment for its failure to allege that- the transportation was for the "purpose of sale." This exact question has been settled against appellant's contention in Crowley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242 S. W. 472; Stringer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 241 S. W. 159; Ex parte Mitchum (Tex. Cr. App.) 237 S. W. 936; Copeland v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 244 S. W. 818 (not yet [officially] reported).
The sufficiently of the evidence to sustain the conviction is questioned.- The city marshal saw appellant with two suit cases going towards a passenger coach which was standing on a side .trade. The officer immediately followed, and within two or three minutes found only appellant and the newsboy Jm the coach. In the negro compartment he found two suit cases containing four gallons of whisky. No other suit cases were in the coach. Appellant denied ownership, also denied that he had carried the suit cases and placed them in'the car. A single question of fact was thus presented to the jury, which they settled in favor of the state. It was within their province to accept either statement, and we would not be authorized to disturb the verdict. There was no error in refusing the requested instruction to acquit. The court properly declined to instruct- the jury to return a verdict of not guilty if the liquor was found in the coach, but "said whisky was not in the possession of defendant, or anywhere near the defendant." Appellant might not have been in possession of the whisky when it was found, nor near thereto, and still have been guilty of transporting it.
Appellant requested a special charge to the effect that the jury should acquit if they believed, or entertained a reasonable doubt, that the suit cases containing the whisky were placed in the coach by some one other than accused. The contention is made that the failure to give such, instruction was viola-tive of the principle consistently recognized by this cohrt that an accused is entitled to have his defense submitted in an affirmative way. We do not regard the refusal of the charge as an infringment upon the well-established rule. No. affirmative defense was presented by appellant He simply denied the truth of the facts testified to by the state's witness. Under the facts of this case it occurs to us his defense was fully covered under the general charge of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence.
The judgment is affirmed.