Case Name: WADE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 248 S.W. 382
Docket Number: No. 7406
Parties: WADE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 248
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
WADE v. STATE.
(No. 7406.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb 7, 1923.
Rehearing Denied March 7, 1923.)
(.Criminal law <©=> 1091 (I I) — Bill of exceptions should not consist of questions and answers.
Bills of exceptions consisting of questions and answers do not set out sufficient surrounding circumstances upon which to appraise the merits of the points to which they are addressed.
2. Criminal law <@=>406(5) — Statement made by accused after arrest as te location of still held admissible.
In a prosecution for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, a statement of accused, after arrest, as to the location of the still, was admissible, under Code Or. Proc. art. 810.
Appeal from District Court, Wise County; F. O. McKinsey, Judge.
J. D. Wade was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Oscar H. Calvert, of Dallas, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.-

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Without detailing the evidence, it appears quite sufficient to support the verdict.
Two bills of exceptions are found. Both are in question and answer form. Neither of them sets out -sufficient surrounding circumstances upon which to appraise the merits of the points to which they are addressed. See Jetty v. State, 90 Tex. Or. R. 346, 235 S. W. 589; Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, § 207.
The officer testified that he went to the premises occupied by the appellant and told him that they wanted to search his premises; that they wanted to know where he had the still, to which he replied that "there is one down there in that bam," pointing towards the barn. The officer said: "Well, let us go down and see." Appellant went with him and pointed out the still, together with some whisky and other' appurtenances for manufacturing whisky. The point made against the admissibility of this evidence apparently is that its receipt was inhibited under the statute forbidding the proof of the confession under certain circumstances. See Code of Crim. Proe. art. 810. The statute does not forbid the proof of the confession which leads to the finding of the fruits of the crime or the instruments with which it is committed. See Broz v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 245 S. W. 707.
Finding no error in the record, the' Judgment is affirmed.
'tScsI'or other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes