Case Name: PENCE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-03-07
Citations: 9 S.W.2d 348
Docket Number: No. 11402
Parties: PENCE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 9
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
PENCE v. STATE.
(No. 11402.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 7, 1928.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1928.
See, also, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 285, 296 S. W. 542.
Davidson, Blalock & Blalock, of Marshall,, ■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 one year.
Appellant was seen by officers driving an automobile on East Bowie street in the town of Marshall. The car was heavily loaded. The officers watched the ear until it was lost to view. Later the officers drove out Long-view road about 7 or 8 miles and found appellant and his wife at a little sehoolhouse eating lunch. They were sitting rear the car appellant had been driving. The car was searched and found to contain 164 quarts of whisky.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf. Appellant's wife, testifying in behalf of appellant, declared on direct examination that appellant had bought the whisky in question from a man in a Dodge car, that this man removed the whisky from his car to appellant's ear, and that appellant did not move his car after the whisky had been placed in it.
The testimony touching the result of the search was objected to on the ground that the officers had no search warrant. The-state undertook to show that appellant con sented to the search. In view of the fact that appellant's wife testified to appellant's possession of the whisky, it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the search of appellant's car was legal. Where the record shows that the same testimony thus objected to was otherwise introduced by the accused himself, or some other witness, without objection, the accused cannot claim to have been injured by the testimony objected to, even if such testimony was improperly admitted. Gonzales v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 253, 299 S. W. 901; Frey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 8 S.W.(2d) 459, opinion handed down on January 25, 1928; Bonilla v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 603, 2 S.W.(2d) 248, opinion handed down on January 25, 1928; McLaughlin v. State (No. 11286) 4 S.W.(2d) 54, opinion handed down February 15, 1928; Sifuentes et al. v. State (No. 11546) 5 S.W.(2d) 144, opinion handed down March 7, 1928.
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of jCriminal Appeals and approved by the court.