Case Name: COLTER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-10
Citations: 255 S.W. 406
Docket Number: No. 7500
Parties: COLTER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 255
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
COLTER v. STATE.
(No. 7500.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 10, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1923.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;982 — No error in.rtfusing .an instruction for a suspended sentence where accused ,is over 25 years of age.
Error cannot be predicated on the trial court’s declining to submit an instruction on the question of a suspended sentence for one accused of the .sale of whisky., under Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588%a4; no averment being made in the application that accused was under 25 years, of age, and the court certifying that the accused is over .that age.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;507(l) — Where witness acted solely with and 'for the purchaser in the purchase of whisky, he was not an accomplice with defendant.
A witness who acted solely with and for the purchaser in the purchase of Whisky from defendant, by transmitting a cheek between the parties and allowing defendant to place the whisky in his bam, was not an accomplice in the sale, under Vernon’B Ann. Pen. Code Supp., 1922, art. 5S8%a3.
3. Criminal- law &wkey;>372(2) — Prosecution permitted to show defendant sold whisky at another time, where he admits the transaction, but claims he acted as agent.
Where defendant admitted a transaction involving the sale of whisky, but alleged that the whisky was not sold by him, but was purchased from another party for the accommodation of another, the state can show that defendant sold whisky at another time, to aid the .jury in solving the question of alleged agency.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law i&wkey;>507(l) — That witness appropriated money returned to the purchaser, after sale of whisky was completed, did not make him accomplice in the sale.
The fact that witness appropriated part of the money returned by defendant to the purchaser of whisky, due to poor quality, did not make him an accomplice with the defendant in its sale, which was completed when the whisky was turned over to the purchaser.
«gssFor other cases see sametopic and KEY-MTJMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
Raudall Colter was convicted of selling whisky, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, for appellant. •
H. it. Xoung, Co. Atty., of Kaufman, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J
Conviction is for the sale of whisky. Punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant filed an application requesting that the issue of suspended sentence be submitted to the jury. The application contains no averment that accused was under 25 years of age. In refusing a requested instruction upon the issue the learned trial judge certifies that he declined to submit the question because accused was more than-25 years old. The correctness of the court's-action is manifest from article 588% a4, Vernon's 1922 Supplement; Robinson v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 244 S. W. 599; Davis v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 246 S. W. 395; Hooper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 250 S. W. 694.
The contention is made that the court should have instructed the jury that the witness Wilson was an accomplice, dr should have submitted the question to the jury under an appropriate charge. Wilson's testimony is, in substance, that appellant sold the whisky to one Frederick; that it was' to be delivered at Wilson's barn; that Frederick left a check with Wilson which he turned over to appellant when the whisky •was placed in the barn. Frederick's testimony would make Wilson his agent in the purchase of the whisky, which is borne out by the evidence of appellant that his transaction was with Wilson. We think neither charge called for. Whatever Wilson's connection with the matter may have been, he was acting with and for the purchaser. The purchaser of intoxicating liquor is no longer an accomplice. See article 588%a3, Vernon's 1922 Supplement (Acts 37th Leg. [1921] 1st C. S. c. 61), adding section 2c to Acts 1919, 36th Leg. 2d C. S. c. 78; Cortinas v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 52, 245 S. W. 911; Plachy v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 405, 239 S. W. 979.
The state's evidence on direct examination showed that Wilson and Frederick went to Cedarvale shortly before Christmas of 1921 and there met appellant, where Frederick contracted with him for five gallons of whisky to be delivered in Terrell at Wilson's bam; it was so delivered, and Wilson gave appellant Frederick's» check for $75 in payment therefor. Appellant admitted a transaction involving five gallons of whisky, but asserted that be was acting only as aecommo- dation agent for Wilson, and that the whisky delivered at the latter's barn was not sold by appellant, but was purchased by him for Wilson from a man camped near the asylum grounds in- Terrell. In this state of the record the state in rebuttal was permitted' to prove over objection that about July, 1921, appellant sold a quart of whisky to Frederick at or near Cedarvale. It is well settled that in prosecutions for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor other sales cannot he shown unless facts are developed which make such other transaction admissible under an exception to the general rule excluding proof of other offenses. Many cases illustrating the rule are cited under section 166, Branch's Ann. P. C. See, also, Ross v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 245 S. W. 680; Burton v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 335, 247 S. W. 869. Where accused admits in whole or in part the transaction upon which the state relies for conviction, but defends on the ground that he was acting as agent for the purchaser, it appears under former decisions of this codrt to present one of the exceptions making permissible proof of other sales to aid the jury in solving the question of alleged agency. Ross v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 611, 163 S. W. 433; James v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 138 S. W. 612; Columbo v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 145 S. W. 910.
Finding no errors in the record, the judgment is affirmed.