Case Name: COPELLO v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-03
Citations: 254 S.W. 973
Docket Number: No. 7722
Parties: COPELLO v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
COPELLO v. STATE.
(No. 7722.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 3, 1923.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(20) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for transporting for sale.
In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor for the purpose' of sale, evidence that defendant carried a sack containing two gallons and one quart of whisky for one and a half miles held to sustain conviction.
2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;22'4 — Accused had' burden of showing lawful purposes in transporting liquor as shown by evidence.
In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquors for sale, proof that defendant carried a sack containing two gallons and one quart of intoxicating liquor for one and a half miles held, to put upon accused the burden of showing a lawful purpose.
3. Criminal law &wkey;878(2)—General verdict of guilty as charged held properly applied to one of two submitted counts.
Where an indictment contained one count for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors and a second possession for sale, the former alone being submitted with supporting evidence, a verdict of guilty as charged was properly applied to that count.
4. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>216—Description of liquor in indictment held sufficient.
A description of liquor, as “capable of producing intoxication,” in an indictment charging transportation for sale, held sufficient.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;394 —Sheriff’s testimony that he found liquor at plaintiff’s home held competent.
In a prosecution for transportation of intoxicating liquor for sale, the sheriff’s testimony that he found a pint of whisky in defendant’s home held competent, regardless of the method by which he ascertained the facts.
Appeal from District Court, Palo Pinto County; J. B. Keith, Judge.
Alossio Copello was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Ritchie & Ranspot, of Mineral Wells, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The conviction is for transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
According to the uncontroverted testimony, appellant carried a sack containing two gallons and one quart of whisky in jugs. (This he brought to his dwelling house after carrying it a mile and a half. In his testimony he said that a man named Calleto gave the sack to him to bring to his house; that he did not know the whereabouts of Calleto, but was told by him that the jugs contained Grape. Appellant also said that he did not intend to sell the whisky; that he did not know the sack contained whisky. Appellant's reputation for truth and veracity and as a law-abiding citizen was good.
We are constrained to believe that the evidence supports the conviction. The distance shown by the evidence and such quantity of whisky as was in appellant's possession put upon appellant the burden of introducing upon his trial some testimony to the effect that the conveyance of the liquor was for some purpose permitted by law. See Lott v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 251 S. W. 1070; Robert v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 133, 234 S. W. 89.
The indictment contains two counts, namely: That appellant unlawfully transported liquor capable of producing intoxication, and that he possessed for the purpose of sale liquor capable of producing intoxication. The count charging transportation was alone submitted to the jury. There was evidence supporting this averment, and a general verdict of guilt as charged was properly applied to the count under which the accused was tried.
The part of the indictment descriptive of the liquor was like that held sufficient in the case of Tucker v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 251 S. W. 1090.
The testimony of the sheriff to the effect that he found a pint of whisky in the home of appellant was not rendered incompetent on account of the method by which the sheriff ascertained the facts. See Welchek v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 247 S. W. 524.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
<@cmFor other cases see same topic and KEY* NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes