Case Name: STALZER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-01-15
Citations: 24 S.W.2d 828
Docket Number: No. 12895
Parties: STALZER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 24
Pages: 828–829

Head Matter:
STALZER v. STATE.
(No. 12895.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 15, 1930.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1930.
Second Motion for Rehearing Denied March 5, 1930.
Ellis, Mays & Rose, of Amarillo, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, J.
The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
Glenn Johnson, Emil Klass, and Rubin Sten-son testified that they aided appellant in transporting 2Ó gallons of alcohol from the state of Illinois to Amarillo, Tex. Johnson testified that appellant furnished him and Rubin Stenson 4 pints of alcohol to he used as samples in an endeavor to secure purchasers. He said that they gave some parties a drinlt of the alcohol, but did not sell any of it. There is nothing in the record showing that any of the alcohol was sold. Appellant offered no testimony.
The court submitted to the jury the question as to whether the witness Johnson was an accomplice, but refused to submit such matter relative to the witnesses Klass and Stenson. It was appellant's contention that the witnesses were accomplices. We are unable to agree with this contention. If we comprehend the evidence, it goes no further than to show that the alcohol which appellant and the witnesses had transported to Amarillo was merely possessed for the purpose of sale. If the sale had been effected, the matter' would be presented in a different light. Under the evidence, appellant and the witnesses were principals in transporting the intoxicating liquor, and at least two of the witnesses were probably principals with appellant in possessing .said liquor for the purpose of sale. Under the provisions of article 670, Pen. Code, the purchaser, transporter, or possessor of intoxicating liquors is not an accomplice witness.
In the case of Bailey v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 432, 284 S. W. 574, Davis and Darnell agreed to buy a quantity of whisky from a bootlegger, and that such whisky should be left at the appellant's home. The bootlegger having left the whisky at appellant's home, Davis and Darnell got it, and, pursuant to an agreement .with the appellant, took it to a place for the purpose of selling it. Appellant was to receive all or part of the money from the sale. The parties were arrested before any sale was effected. Upon the trial, the contention was made that Davis and Darnell were accomplice witnesses. We held in that case that the witnesses, being mere transport-» ers and possessors for the purpose of sale, were not accomplice witnesses, and referred to article 670, supra, and to the decisions to the effect that the purchaser, transporter, or possessor of intoxicating liquors is not an ae-complice witness. See, also, Durham v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 1092.
Failing to find reversible error, the judgment i§. affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
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.