Case Name: R. W. Long v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-04-16
Citations: 97 Tex. Crim. 516
Docket Number: No. 8377
Parties: R. W. Long v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 516–521

Head Matter:
R. W. Long v. The State.
No. 8377.
Decided April 16, 1924.
Rehearing denied June 4, 1924.
1. —Possession of Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence—Conspiracy.
Where the State’s witness testified that on the day of the' arrest of appellant and his brother he had a conversation with the latter, in which he made the statement to the witness that he had a certain quantity of whisky outside of town and that his brother, the defendant, was out there with it, there was no reversible error inasmuch as this testimony was connected up with other facts to show a conspiracy existed at the time between the two brothers.
2. —Same—Evidence—Co-Conspirator.
Where it clearly appeared that the statements of the brother of defendant giving information to the officers as to where the whisky was located came within the rule relative to statements by co-conspirator pending the conspiracy and in furtherance thereof regardless of whether the other conspirator was present at the time, there is no reversible error. Following: Shaw v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 205.
3. —Same—Evidence—Statements of Third Party.
Where appellant contended in his brief that the testimony admitted by the chief State’s witness was only in support of himself, that it was a hearsay statement, when no attack had been made upon him, etc., but it appeared from the record that this was not the purpose of the State in making the proof, and that this was not the objection made at the time by the defendant, there is no reversible error. Following: Brent, 95 Texas Crim. Rep., 14, and other cases.
4. —Same—Evidence—Information to Officers.
Where the officers acted upon information received from the principal State’s witness, as to where the liquor was located, and found it at such place, there is no reversible error. Following: Huey v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep., 554, and other cases.
5. —Same—Rehearing—Conspiracy.
Where appellant in his motion for rehearing contended that the evidence was insufficient to show a conspiracy between the defendant and his brother, but the record shows that the law was not transgressed in receiving the statement of the brother against the defendant in pointing out where the liquor was located, there was no reversible error.
6. —Same—Charge of Court — Conspiracy.
Where the record did not show on appeal that the court below was requested to submit the issue of conspiracy, and in the absence of any complaint thereof, there is no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Howard. Tried below before the Honorable W. P. Leslie.
Appeal from a conviction of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
John B. Littler and B. W. Baker, for appellant.
On question of declarations of co-conspirator: Blain v. State, 26 S. W. Rep., 63; Hays v. State, 236 id., 464.
On question of giving information to officers: Willman v. State, 242 S. W. Rep., 746, and cases cited in opinion.
Tom Garrard, Attorney for the. State and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Appellant is under conviction for the possession of intoxicating • liquor for the purpose of sale with punishment of three years confinement in the penitentiary.
A. E. Blitch testified that between twelve and one o'clock on the day of the arrest of appellant and his brother H. 0. Long he had a conversation with the latter in Big Springs in which H. 0. Long said he had ten gallons of whisky out north of the Experiment Farm near town which he wanted to sell; that his (H. 0. Long's) brother was out there with the whisky. Objection was interposed to this testimony on the ground that appellant (R. W. Long) was not present at the time of such conversation, and because no connection of appellant with H. 0. Long in the matter had been shown. The bill is explained by the learned trial judge with the statement that the district attorney assured the court that in due time the development of the case would show a conspiracy between appellant and II. 0. Long in possessing the whisky for the purpose of sale, and the court admitted such evidence as a declaration made by one conspirator while such conspiracy was pending and in furtherance of the same.
The testimony later developed that Blitch told H. 0. Long that he (witness) would come out to where the whisky was located. Blitch immediately informed the sheriff relative to the matter and the sheriff and one of his deputies proceeded to the place where they found ten gallons of whisky secreted in the brush. They discovered R. W. Long (appellant) leaving the place, he being about forty yards from where the whisky was found at the time he was seen by the officers. Appellant was then placed under arrest and the officers secreted themselves. In a short time H. 0. Long and his nephew, a son of appellant, drove up in a car and turned out of the road at a point near where the whisky was concealed; H. 0. Long was heard to express some impatience at the failure of "that fellow" to come, in a few minutes thereafter the witness Blitch drove up in a car, whereupon the officers also placed H. 0. Long and the son of appellant under arrest. The court committed no error in permitting the witness Blitch to detail the conversation had with H. 0. Long in the city of Big Spring. The evidence later developed was sufficient to show that he and appellant were acting together in the attempted sale of the whisky and authorized the jury to conclude that appellant was left in charge thereof while H. 0. Long sought a purchaser. It appears to be brought clearly within the rule relative to statements by a conspirator made pending the conspiracy and in furtherance thereof regardless of whether the other conspirators are present at the time he makes the statement. Shaw v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 205, 229 S. W., 509; See. 694, p. 353, Branch's Ann. Penal Code.
The only other bill of exception relates to an object ion on the part of appellant to the witness Blitch testifying that af-er his conversation with H. 0. Long heretofore detailed that he reported this conversation to the officers, the objection being that it was a statement made by the witness Blitch out of the presence of appellant and was as to him hearsay and in no manner binding on him. Blitch did not state in detail before the jury what he reported to the officers, but merely testified that he did report the conversation. The question might properly be disposed of on the ground that the sheriff, without objection, later testified that he received information from Blitch and acted on it. • However, appellant briefs the point on the ground that it was in effect permitting the witness Blitch to support himself by his hearsay statement when no attack had been made upon him which would justify it. This was not the objection made at the time as appears from the bill, and from the entire record it does not seem that such was the purpose of the State in making the proof. The authorities to which we are referred, (Brent v. State, 95 Texas Crim. Rep., 14, 252 S. W., 500; Holmes v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 352-353, 106 S. W., 1160; Long v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 28, 124 S. W., 640; Dorman v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 104, 141 S. W., 526) do not appear to be in point as we understand the record. The witness testified as a fact that he had a certain conversation with H. 0. Long, and to the additional fact that he reported the matter to the officers. Upon that information the officers acted, and they testify to facts learned by them not from Blitch but as a result of acting on information from him. We think the principle announced in Huey v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep., 554; Marta v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep., 135, 193 S. W., 323 and Willman v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 77, 242 S. W., 746 controls. It appears to have been only a method of connecting up the testimony and accounting for the presence of the officers where the whisky was discovered and the arrests made.
Finding no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.