Case Name: HARRIS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-17
Citations: 276 S.W. 266
Docket Number: No. 9275
Parties: HARRIS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 276
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
HARRIS v. STATE.
(No. 9275.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 17, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1925.)
• Blain & Jones, of Beaumont, for appellant. Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State;

Opinion:
DATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Jefferson county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and her punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
Upon information given him, as to the fact that appellant had liquor in her possession, and that she kept it in her sewing machine, an officer went to appellant's house. He asked her if that was her machine and received from her the reply that it was. Search of the machine revealed the presence of eight quarts of whisky. The record contains two bills of exception, one of which complains of the refusal of a special charge asked by appellant to the effect that, if the jury found, or had a reasonable doubt of the fact, that the liquor found in the possession of the defendant belonged to some other person, they should acquit her. The other refused charge instructed the jury as to the meaning of the word "possession." In our judgment, the refusal of neither charge presents any reversible error. The whisky was found in appellant's house and in her sewing machine, which machine was claimed by her as her property at the time the officer found the whisky.
It is insisted in the brief filed by appollant'.s able counsel that her testimony that the whisky did not belong to her rebuts the presumption of a prima facie case, and that she is entitled to be acquitted. We regret we cannot agree with this proposition. We have discussed in several cases recently the fact that testimony of the accused, or of the near relatives of the accused, to facts which, if accepted as true by the jury, might rebut the state's case made by the finding of appellant in possession of liquor, would in no sense or way compel the jury to accept same as true.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.