Case Name: Amelia HILL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-12-17
Citations: 33 S.W.2d 1116
Docket Number: No. 13675
Parties: Amelia HILL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 33
Pages: 1116–1116

Head Matter:
Amelia HILL v. STATE.
No. 13675.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 17, 1930.
Vickers & Campbell and Max Coleman, all of Lubbock, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tbe State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Tbe unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor is tbe offense; penalty, confinement in tbe penitentiary for a period of one year.
Tbe state's testimony is, in substance, as follows: Craig, a policeman in Lubbock county, at tbe suggestion of tbe chief of police of tbe town of Slaton, went at nigbt into tbe negro settlement of that town and purchased several bottles of beer from a negro woman whom be identified on tbe witness stand as the appellant. He was in company with a man by tbe name of Wood, but Wood did not testify. Later tbe officer, in company with tbe witness Conley,- -made a search of tbe appellant's bouse, but found no liquor therein. In an adjoining bouse, however, they did find a quantity of beer. Tbe place where tbe liquor was found was a shed room some ten feet from the bouse of tbe appellant.
Tbe appellant testified and denied that she was tbe person who sold tbe beer to tbe witness ; that she was present when they searched her bouse but they found no liquor there; that they found some liquor in tbe house next door which belonged to another person whom she named; that tbe shed room was not rented by her, nor was it under her control. She was arrested after the search was made. She introduced testimony_ which supported .her own that it was a case of mistaken identity, also to tbe effect that tbe house in which the beer was found belonged to and was in possession of another and not tbe appellant.
In tbe motion for new trial, the appellant presented some newly discovered evidence which was material -and uncontroverted. The district attorney who tried tbe case has presented here a confession of-error, admitting that tbe conviction was tbe result of a mistake in the identity of the appellant.
Tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded.