Case Name: REUSCH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1932-01-13
Citations: 45 S.W.2d 209
Docket Number: No. 14465
Parties: REUSCH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 45
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
REUSCH v. STATE.
No. 14465.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 13, 1932.
Johnson & White, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Cecil C. Rotsch and Stanley Bransford, •Asst. Crim. Dist. Attys., both of Fort Worth, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Unlawfully carrying a pistol is the offense ; penalty assessed at a fine of $100.
About 2 o'clock in the morning, the appellant and two other young men drove their automobile into a filling station which was closed; that is, it was not open for business at that time. The number on the automobile indicated that it was not registered in Tarrant county. As the appellant and his companions were backing their car out of the filling station, they were stopped by the officers and questioned. The appellant was commanded by the officers to get out of the car. A loaded pistol.was found upon the seat, of the car.
Appellant testified, in substance, as follows: He and his companions had ibeen to a party and drove into the filling station for the purpose of getting water for the car. Binding none, they were in the act of backing the car out of the station when they were arrested by the officers. He said that the pistol in the car belonged to him; that he did not know it was in the car until after his arrest. Pie slept in a store and kept a pistol for his protection, was not accustomed to carrying, it, and did not know in what part of the car it was found.
Appellant relies for a discharge and a reversal of his case upon the constitutional provision against an unlawful search and upon the statutory declaration that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not admissible. See article 1, § 9, Const. of Texas, and article 727a, C. C. P. 1925, declaring inadmissible testimony acquired contrary to the Constitution and laws of this state. See, also, Odenthal v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 290 S. W. 743; Chapin v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 477, 296 S. W. 1095. Appellant made timely objection to the testimony of the officers in finding the pistol in the car. If it be conceded that the officers had no right to arrest him or to search his car, it is made plain from the appellant's own testimony that he possessed the pistol that was in the car. The officers testified to nothing more. On the relevant issue in the case, that is, whether the appellant was unlawfully carrying a pistol contrary to article 483, P. C., the officers gave no more information than the appellant gave by his own testimony. It is a rule that the accused cannot claim error in admitting testimony where he gave substantially the same testimony. See Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 421; Houston v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 261, 16 S.W.(2d) 119; Brookshire v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 352, 16 S.W.(2d) 1082, 1083; Enix v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 376, 16 S.W.(2d) 818; Bonilla v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 603, 2 S.W.(2d) 248; McLaughlin v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 4 S.W.(2d) 54; Sifuentes et al. v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 398, 5 S.W.(2d) 144; Sherow v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 539, 9 S.W.(2d) 353; Kitchens v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 45, 10 S.W.(2d) 999; Tate v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 156, 12 S.W.(2d) 210.
In the court's charge to the jury, instructions were given in appropriate language thai, if the pistol was in the car without knowledge of the appellant, or if he did not realize that the pistol was there, or if upon that subject there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, it should be resolved in favor of the appellant, and, an acquittal should result.
From the record before us, we are constrained to order an affirmance of the judgment.