Case Name: SLOAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-01-11
Citations: 7 S.W.2d 567
Docket Number: No. 11361
Parties: SLOAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 7
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
SLOAN v. STATE.
(No. 11361.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 11, 1928.
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1928.
Sturgeon & Sturgeon, of Paris, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, 4 years in the penitentiary.
There are six bills of exception in the record, each of which has received careful attention. Bill No. 1 complains of the refusal of a peremptory instruction for acquittal. We think such refusal not error. Bill No. 2 complains of the refusal of a charge, in substance, instructing the jury that, before they could convict, they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that one Hazel purchased the intoxicating liquor in question from the defendant, and that, if they had a reasonable doubt as to whether appellant was the party from whom he purchased said liquor, they should acquit. This we think sufficiently covered by the main charge, which instructed the jury that, if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt defendant did sell intoxicating liquor to said Hazel, they should convict; but, if they did not so believe, or if they had a reasonable doubt thereof, they should acquit. .Bill No. 3 is to the refusal of a charge substantially the same as.that complained of in bill No. 2. The fourth bill of exceptions was taken to the refusal of the court to grant a new trial. No complaint of misconduct of the jury, or of newly discovered evidence, or of other matter foreign to the regular trial, appears in said motion. Believing the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and that no error of procedure appears, we perceive nothing in such bill of exceptions. '
Appellant's fifth complaint is that the prosecuting witness was permitted to answer the question as to whether or not in his best judgment appellant was the man from whom he bought the liquor. No authorities are cited and none known to us holding this to be error. Cases might be cited holding to the contrary.
Appellant vigorously assails the sufficiency of the testimony. As we view the record, the merit of this appeal depends upon whether the jury or this court are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses. By the express terms of article 657, C. C. P., the jury are made the exclusive judges of the facts. This has been held to withdraw from this court, and to repose in the jury, the right to pass on the credibility of the witnesses. Smith v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 146 S. W. 896. In Norwood v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 552, 192 S. W. 248, it is stated that this court will not disturb a conviction because it may be our opinion that we would not have rendered the verdict given by the jury, if the evidence had been submitted to the members of the court in the first instance. The same holding appears in Johnson v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 61, 200 S. W. 832. In Jacobs v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 564, 208 S. W. 917, we held that, where the is sues had been submitted to the jury in a manner satisfactory to the accused, the finding of the jury on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed. The prosecuting witness in this case did not appear anxious to give testimony to convict. He said that at the time he bought the whisky he did not know the man from whom he bought it; he further said that he met appellant to know him later; but he affirmed without question that m his best judgment appellant was the man from whom he bought the whisky. There is some testimony as to where appellant lived which tends to corroborate the testimony of said prosecuting witness, who told how he was carried in a car down to where he bought the whisky. We note that appellant did not take the stand, nor did he introduce any witness to deny the facts stated by said prosecuting witness; but seemed to rest his case on the testimony for the state.
Being of opinion that it is not our duty to disturb a verdict and judgment upon facts like these, and finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.