Case Name: HERNANDEZ v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-11-14
Citations: 13 S.W.2d 704
Docket Number: No. 11969
Parties: HERNANDEZ v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 13
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
HERNANDEZ v. STATE.
(No. 11969.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 14, 1928.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1929.
James A. Stephens, of Benjamin, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MARTIN, J.
Offense, the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, 18 months in the penitentiary.
Officers at nighttime came upon appellant and another Mexican in a secluded spot. There was found at this place a complete still in operation, two barrels of mash of about 40 gallons each, and a jug half full of whisky. At this time and place officers observed appellant punching up the fire under the still. Both Mexicans fled upon discovery of the presence of the officers, and appellant was thereafter apprehended in some bushes nearby where he had hidden.
Appellant insists that the court erred in not charging on circumstantial evidence. The proven facts- show that appellant was caught assisting in the actual operation of a still. He was in such juxtaposition to the main fact to be proved as made the testimony, we think, direct, and a charge on circumstantial evidence was therefore not required. Holt v. State, 9 Tex. App. 582; Wilkerson v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 384, 300 S. W. 942.
The claim is made that a charge on principals under the above recited facts was a charge on the weight of the evidence. The court gave the usual, and we think a correct, charge on principals, and, there being positive testimony that defendant and another were acting together, we think said charge was applicable, and was in no sense a charge upon the weight of the evidence. Coggins v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 151 S. W. 311.
• Appellant's defense was that he was accidentally present at the scene of the crime and did not participate in any way in its commission, and had had nothing to do with either the ownership or the operation of the still. This defense was, we think, fairly and pertinently submitted to the jury by the court.
The evidence being sufficient, and there being no errors shown in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
PER OURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.