Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-03-31
Citations: 283 S.W. 809
Docket Number: No. 10052
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: MORROW, P. X, absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 283
Pages: 809–810

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(No. 10052.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 31, 1926.
Rehearing Denied May-26, 1926.)
Anderson & Mobley, of San Angelo, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for tbe State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for tbe unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, with punishment assessed at one year in tbe penitentiary.
Appellant's main contention is that tbe evidence does not warrant the conviction-. We are not able to agree with bim on tbis point. Tbe evidence is short and undisputed. In some way not disclosed,' tbe sheriff had learned there were three gallon jugs of whisky secreted under a cedar bush in a pasture some three miles from Big Springs, and near the road leading from there to appellant's borne. Tbe officer bad secreted himself, and was watching tbe whisky. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon a car driven by appellant came from tbe direction of tbe town named and stopped in tbe road at a point opposite the whisky. W. S. Wilkerson got out of tbe car, went through tbe fence, walked up to where the whisky was, looked over in the bush under which it 'was sitting, ran back and got in tbe car, and they drove on down the road out of sight, but returned in a few minutes going back towards town. Tbe officer remained on .watch. About sundown, appellant and Wilkerson again appeared. Appellant was driving. Pie stopped tbe car, but left tbe engine running. Wilkerson again went to tbe whisky, picked up two of tbe jugs, and started to the car with it. After going some 10 or 15 steps, tbe sheriff stopped bim. Appellant'^ own evidence is to tbe effect that, as be.and Wilkerson were going to Big Springs on the morning of tbe day mentioned, appellant bought the whisky from a Mexican, but, not wishing to take it into town, bad directed bim to put it. in tbe pasture, where tbe officers found it, and that be intended to get it as be went back home. He explained that tbe trip made by them at 2 o'clock was only to ascertain if tbe whisky was still there. Appellant claimed tbe whisky and said Wilkerson bad no interest in it whatever, but was only bringing it to tbe car for appellant. This is perhaps explained from the record showing that appellant was crippled as the result of injuries sustained in an accident some time before.
The recital of the foregoing facts leave no douBt as to the evidence being sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. Parties may he coprincipals in the commission of the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor the same as in the commission -of any other felony. The learned trial judge recognized this, and properly charged on principals in the present case. Appellant and Wilkerson were acting together. Indeed, Wilkerson seemed to be acting for appellant in bringing the whisky to the latter's car. Appellant intended continuing with it to his home, which was several miles distant. The transportation had begun. It was not necessary that it be completed. Lamb v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 457, 255 S. W. 424; Lee v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 654, 255 S. W. 425; Black v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 56, 255 S. W. 731; Hannon v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 660, 259 S. W. 1083; Finley v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 542, 258 S. W. 1062; Tullos v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 268 S. W. 174; Winters v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 276, 275 S. W. 1015.
Appellant defended on the ground that he had bought the whisky to take home to be used for medicinal purposes. This issue was properly submitted, and the jury settled it against accused.
We' have carefully examined the bills of exception which raise other questions. In our opinion, none of them present error calling for a reversal.
The judgment is affirmed.
MORROW, P. X, absent.