Case Name: RICHMOND v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 258 S.W. 816
Docket Number: No. 7430
Parties: RICHMOND v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 258
Pages: 816–818

Head Matter:
RICHMOND v. STATE.
(No. 7430.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 24, 1923.
Rehearing Denied March 5, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;720(3) — Argument on evidence admitted without objection not improper.
Argument of counsel concerning statements by defendant made after his arrest, evidence of which were admitted without objection, held not improper.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;720(3) — Defendant permitting reception of evidence cannot object to argument thereon.
Defendant may not admit testimony which might be subject to objection, and thereafter complain of its use by the state in argument or otherwise.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;364(4) — Statements by defendant after arrest held admissible as res gestae.
Testimony, in a prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor, that defendant immediately after his arrest stated he had 27½ gallons of liquor in his car, held admissible as part of res gestae.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;37l(IO) — Evidence of sales in prosecution for possession admissible.
In a prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor, proof of sales by defendant shortly before the date of his arrest held admissible, intent to sell being an essential element of unlawful possession, and one which the state was required to establish.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;404(f) — Permitting sheriff to produce jar containing whisky held not prejudicial.
In a prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor, permitting the sheriff to bring before the jury a jar containing whisky, which he testified he obtained from defendant at the time of his arrest, held not prejudicial, particularly where, upon defendant’s objection, the court directed removal of same.
On Motion for Rehearing.
6. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(6!/2> — Evidence held to sustain conviction for possession.
Evidence held to sustain conviction for possession of whisky.
7. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(6'/2) — Proof of actual sales not necessary to conviction for unlawful possession.
A finding of guilt of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor is not dependent upqn proof of actual sales by accused, the illegal purpose of such possession being inferable from the, quantity' possessed or the surrounding circumstances.
8. Criminal law <®=ul 159(2)—Jury’s finding as to purpose of possession not disturbed.
Tlie jury’s finding as to the purpose of possession of intoxicating liquor will not be disturbed unless manifestly against the weight of the testimony.
Appeal from District Court, Jones County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
G. C. Richmond was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Lon A. Brooks and J. E. Robinson, both of Anson, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
From a conviction in the district court of Jones county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, appellant brings this appeal.
The facts show that appellant was arrested in possession of a car in which were 27½ gallons of whisky. Evidence was before the jury showing sales of liquor by appellant about that time. The evidence amply supports the judgment of guilty.
Appellant has two bills of exception complaining of improper argument on the part of the state's attorney. An examination of said bills discloses that the argument complained of consisted of the repetition before the jury of a statement made by appellant immediately following his arrest in which he stated that he had 27½ gallons of liquor in his car. Each of said bills of exception is qualified by a statement from the learned trial judge that this testimony was admitted without objection. This being the case, it would be permissible to discuss it. This court has said many times that' the accused may not sit silently by and permit testimony, which might be subject to objection, to be introduced and thereafter complain of use made of it by the state in argument or otherwise. We might further observe with reference to the statement made by the appellant almost immediately following his arrest, to the effect that he had in his car 27½ gallons of liquor, that it would appear to be admissible under the further rule of res geste that statements made in connection with or as a part of a confession which lead to the discovery of- fruits of the crime, and which are found to be true, become thus admissible.
Appellant also complains of testimony of sales of liquor made by him shortly before the date of his arrest in possession of the liquor charged in this case. An essential element of the offense charged herein is the purpose and intent of the appellant in having liquor in his possession; that is, the state must satisfy the jury that such possession was for the purpose of sale. As shedding light upon the intent of the accused in such possession, it is permissible for the state to show sales of such liquor within reasonable proximity of time. Anderson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 238 S. W. 221; Newton v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.) 250 S. W. 1036.
We perceive no error in the action of the sheriff in bringing before the jury at the time he testified a glass jar said by him to be one of 'the jars of whisky obtained from the appellant at the time of his arrest. If such testimony was in any wise objectionable, it could not be held so in the instant case, because the learned trial judge qualifies the bill of exceptions by saying that when the accused objected he directed the officer' to remove the whisky. This disposes of the contentions of appellant. Being unable to agree with any of them, an affirmance will be ordered.
<gj»Por other eases see same topic and KEY-N UMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<&wkey;For other eases see sqme tojic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes