Case Name: A. B. Hunt v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1953-02-11
Citations: 158 Tex. Crim. 618
Docket Number: No. 26,248
Parties: A. B. Hunt v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 618–621

Head Matter:
A. B. Hunt v. State.
No. 26,248.
February 11, 1953.
Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied May 20, 1953.
Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) June 17, 1953.
H. S. Beard, and [on Rehearing and on Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Rehearing], C. S. Farmer, Waco, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was charged with the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, marihuana, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for four years.
There are no bills of exception in the record. However, the facts show that around 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon of June 12, 1952, a witness was in the North Waco Baptist Church in company with her son. They were in the basement of the church fixing a display for the Summer Bible School Commencement Exercises. There were three buildings which constituted this church, and the witness and her son were in the middle building. Appellant came from the back of this middle building and down to the side. He stepped down and began looking in a hole which seemed to be an air vent hole about a foot square. He squatted down there at the opening and began digging in there "to either get something or put something in there." In a minute he got up and walked around the front of the building and went in a certain direction. The witness and her son went around and looked in this air vent hole and found nothing. They heard the appellant coming toward them from around the back of the building. They walked away toward the rear at a door. Appellant passed them and said, "Hello; it is sure hot." They went back in the building and stopped at a window in the back thereof. They then saw appellant at a lumber pile between the two buildings. He was reaching down under that lumber pile at the south end of it. He stood there temporarily "either getting something or putting something away" and then came back between those two buildings and went around the front of the church. The witness then heard a car start. She and her son soon walked over to the lumber pile where appellant had stood and found two Prince Albert tobacco cans full of something which did not look like tobacco, nor did it smell like tobacco. They took the cans to the pástor's study, but since he was not there, they returned them to the lumber pile. However, the cans were soon placed in the pastor's study and later turned over to the officers and this prosecution resulted. The witness identified the two cans upon the trial and they were shown by proper testimony to contain marihuana, a narcotic drug.
Appellant had no attorney but represented himself at the trial and rather shrewdly examined the witnesses.
We think the testimony is sufficient to show that the appellant is placed within such close juxtaposition to the narcotic drug as to justify the jury in concluding that the same was in his possession.
The court gave a proper charge to the jury relative to the law of circumstantial evidence, but under the decisions of this court, because of the close relationship between appellant and the facts to be proven, such a charge was really not required. However, the court, out of an abundance of caution, saw fit to incorporate such instruction in his main charge although appellant was not entitled to relief hereunder on account of the fact that he had received more than he was entitled to under the law. See Egbert v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 663, 176 S.W. 560; Hernandez v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 671, 13 S.W. (2d) 704; Webb v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 230; 8 S.W. (2d) 165; Richardson v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 403, 5 S.W. (2d) 141; Helton v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 359, 250 S.W. 1030; Brown v. State, 126 Tex. Cr. R. 449, 72 S.W. (2d) 269.
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.