Case Name: ROSS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-29
Citations: 273 S.W. 582
Docket Number: No. 8624
Parties: ROSS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 273
Pages: 582–584

Head Matter:
ROSS v. STATE.
(No. 8624.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 29, 1925.
Rehearing Denied June 10, 1925.)
4.Constitutional law &wkey;311 — Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>(9 — Law as to prima facie evidence of possession held constitutional.
Acts 2d Called Sess. 38th Leg. (1923) c. 22, § 2e, providing that possession of more than one quart of intoxicating liquor shall be prima facie evidence of possession for sale, held not in violation of Const, art. 1, § 10.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;>(038(l), 1056(1)--Charge not objected or excepted to below will not be considered on appeal.
Failure of court to define term “prima facie,” used in charge, will not be considered on appeal, where no objections or exceptions were urged to the charge, or ño special charges submitted.
3. Criminal law &wkey;957(5) — Jurors’ disobedience of court’s instructions cannot be proven by them.
In prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor for sale, it could not be shown by evidence submitted by jurors that they considered, in rendering their verdict, count in indictment which had been withdrawn from their consideration by the court.
4. Criminal law &wkey;858(3) — Jury may take indictment to jury room, though it contains count withdrawn from case.
Vernon’s Ann: Code Or. Proe. 1916, art. 751, providing that all original papers in the case may be'taken with the jury on retiring, includes indictment, though it contains count which had been withdrawn from case.
On Motion for Rehearing.'
5. Criminal law &wkey;957( I) — Verdict of jury may not be impeached by affidavit or sworn statement of a juror.
Verdict of jury may not be impeached by affidavit or sworn statement of a juror.
6. Criminal law <§=>957(3) — When verdict impeachable by affidavit of juror under statute stated.
Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. art. 837, subd. 8, granting right to new ¡trial in certain cases, and authorizing receipt of affidavit of juror in proof of violation of specific acts prohibited by the article, relates to undefined misconduct of the jury, recognized as sufficient to vitiate verdict, and discretion to determine whether it is of such nature rests with the trial court.
7. Criminal law <&wkey;!039 — Where no request for withdrawal of count from jury was made on its retirement, objection to its consideration by jttiry will not be heard on appeal.
On appeal from prosecution for possession of intoxicating, liquor for sale, appellant will not be heard to complain of jury’s considera'tion of count contained in indictment, but withdrawn from case by court, where no request was made for its withdrawal from jury on ■ their retirement.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from District Court, Grayson County ; E. E. Wilcox, Judge.
Hicks Ross was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for sale, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
B. F. GafCord, of Sherman, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
Appellant was charged by indictment with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of sale in one count, and in another count with unlawful possession of equipment, still, mash, and material for manufacturing spirituous liquors, on or about the 21st day of September, 1923, and was convicted in the district court of Grayson county .upon the first count in the indictment on January 1, 1924, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year, the court having withdrawn from the consideration of the jury the second count in the indictment, from which conviction the appellant has appealed to this court for a reversal of this case.
Appellant complains in his bill of exception No. 1 of the following portion of the court's charge:
"It is provided by a recent act of our Legislature that the possession' of more than one quart of intoxicating liquor shall be prima facie evidence that such possession was for the purpose of sale; but the defendant shall have the right to introduce evidence showing the legality of such possession and in this connection you are instructed that the possession of intoxicating liquor for medicinal purposes is legal,"
—because such charge was prejudicial to the rights of the appellant upon the weight of the evidence, and the act of the Legislature relative thereto (Acts 2d called Sess. 38th Leg. [1923] c. 22, § 2e) was in violation of section 10, article 1, of our Constitution.
The court followed up that portion of the charge complained of and charged the jury as follows:
"If you believe from the evidence that defendant was in possession of spirituous liquor as charged in the indictment, but you believe that he had the same for medicinal purposes, then you should acquit the defendant, or if you have a reasonable, doubt as to whether he did or not you will acquit him,"
—and, in addition thereto, gave the usual charge on the presumption of innocence and on reasonable doubt.
We are unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant as to the unconstitutionality of said statute, and as to the charge being upon the weight of the evidence, and deem it unnecessary to go into a lengthy discussion of the same, in view of the former decisions of this court construing the same act of the Legislature against the contention of the appellant. Stoneham v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 268 S. W. 156; Newton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 267 S. W. 272; Herrin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 271 S. W. 928, decided April 1, 1925, not yet [officially] published.
There are several other objections urged to the court's charge in appellant's-brief, among which' is complaint made because the court failed to define the term "prima facie"; hut, as there were no objections or exceptions urged to said charge in this respect, as required by the statutes, and no special charges submitted, we are unauthorized to consider same.
There is also complaint in this case of the misconduct of the jury, to the effect that after they went out to consider their verdict, and stood 8 to 4 for conviction, they discussed and considered the second count of -the indictment, which charged appellant with having equipment, still, mash, and material for manufacturing spirituous liquors, which count had been withdrawn from their consideration by the court. There was evidence offered by the appellant in support of this contention through the jurors, to the effect that they considered same in reaching their verdict in this case. This court has held that it is not permissible to permit the jurors, either by affidavit or oral testimony, to show that they misunderstood, misread, or misconstrued the charge of the court. Branch's Annotated Penal Code, p. 29Y, § 5Y5,' and authorities there cited. The statutes authorize the jury to have all original papers during their deliberation and consideration of the verdict. This includes the indictment in the case. Yernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, art. Y51. In Underhill's Criminal Evidence, § 362, it is stated:
"The jurors may, when out of court, consult memoranda* or notes of the'judge's charge, and all papers which are in evidence, including the indictment," — citing Stout v. State, 90 Ind. 1.
Prom the authorities above quoted and cited, we are of the opinion that the court was not in error in overruling the motion for new trial in this particular.
After a careful examination of the entire record, we fail to find any error committed upon the trial in the lower court, and this case is accordingly affirmed.
PEE CUBIAM. 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.
<&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes