Case Name: BRITTEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-27
Citations: 274 S.W. 147
Docket Number: No. 9137
Parties: BRITTEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 147–149

Head Matter:
BRITTEN v. STATE.
(No. 9137.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 27, 1925.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 24, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <§=>1091 (II) — Bill of exceptions in question and answer form not considered, in view of statute.
Bills of exceptions which are in question and ^answer form, and therefore violative of Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 846, cannot be considered. ,
2. Criminal law <⅞=721 (3) — Argument of state’s attorney held not to allude to defendant’s failure to testify.
Argument of state’s attorney that “the defendant sits back, and the state presumes that he is innocent, and must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” did not allude to defendant’s failure to testify, or call jury’s attention to failure of appellant to take-witness stand.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <§=>419, 420(10) — Testimony of witness relative to renting of accused’s, land held inadmissible as hearsay.
Testimony that certain persons rented portions of accused’s land was properly excluded, as hearsay, where it was but an opinion based' on. what witness had heard stated by others, who were not witnesses in the case.
4. Intoxicating liquors <§=>226 — Exclusion of testimony relating to renting of accused’s land’ held immaterial.
In prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, exclusion of testimony relative to renting of defendant’s farm to another held of no materiality, because such testimony in no sense rebutted state’s case.
5. Criminal law <§=>763, 764(6) — Charge that whisky was intoxicating liquor correct.
In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, charge that whisky was intoxicating liquor was proper.
6. Intoxicating liquors <§=>239(2) — Charge, on principals held properly given, in view of evidence.
In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, a charge on principals held properly given, in view of the evidence.
7. Criminal law ©=3761 (6) — Charge held not to assume fact that party named therein was making whisky.
In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, charge that, if jury believed appellant, “acting with P., manufactured liquor,” etc., held not to assume that P. was making whisky.
Appeal from District Court, Roberts County; W. R. Ewing, Judge.
Matt Britten was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
Hugh L. Umpbres, of Amarillo, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for tbe State.

Opinion:
DATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in tbe district court of Roberts county of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and bis punishment fixed at one year in tbe penitentiary. • ' .
There are three bills of exception, two of which are in question and answer form, and therefore violative of article 846, C. C. P., and under many decisions of this court cannot be considered.
Tbe other bill complains of the fact that the state's attorney in his argument to the jury said:
"Yes; the defendant sits back, and the state presumes that he is innocent, and must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
The objection seems to be that this was an allusion to defendant's failure to testify. We do not think the language used a necessary reference to the failure to testify. The law requires the state to presume the accused to be innocent and to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and certainly reference to this fact in argument could in no wise be said to refer to the failure of the defendant to testify. We are unable to comprehend the proposition that to merely say the defendant sits back would convey to the jury the idea that this meant to call their attention to the failure of appellant to take the witness stand. The bill is qualified with the statement that the argument was in reply to argument made by the attorney for appellhnt.
We see no benefit to arise from an extended statement of the facts. Appellant had a hired man, and was observed to go with this hired man to a house on appellant's premises, where the two remained a considerable length of time. Appellant had been seen around the premises before. Officers searching said house found therein a still in operation.
The judgment will be affirmed.
<@r=>For other oases see same topic-and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<g=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes