Case Name: BONILLA v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-01-25
Citations: 2 S.W.2d 248
Docket Number: No. 11346
Parties: BONILLA v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 2
Pages: 248–248

Head Matter:
BONILLA v. STATE.
(No. 11346.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 25, 1928.
T. H. Miller, of George West, and B. D. Tarlton, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tbe State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Tbe unlawful possession of a still for. tbe purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor is tbe offense; punishment fixed at confinement in tbe penitentiary for one year.
There are two bills of exceptions. One of them challenges the sufficiency of the application for a search warrant; the other relates to the statement by the appellant that be would show the officers where the barrel of mash was and that be did so. A discussion of the bills of exceptions is deemed unnecessary for the reason that the appellant became a witness in bis own behalf and gave practically the same evidence that was given by the officers. He testified in substance that be possessed a still, mash, and other articles suitable for making whisky and which were intended for that purpose; that be bad bought the still for the purpose of making whisky and intended to make that use of it. His testimony presented no defensive theory. The penalty assessed against bim was the minimum. Under such circumstances, it may be conceded that the testimony of the officers was improperly received, but inasmuch as the appellant's own evidence coincided with that of the officers and established the violation of the law charged in the indictment and the minimum penalty assessed against bim, tbis court would not be warranted in reversing the case because of the improper ruling of the court in receiving the testimony of the officers. the precedents are against the appellant. See Gonzales v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 299 S. W. 901; Parker v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 78, 238 S. W. 943; Scharff v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 605, 271 S. W. 83. .
Tbe judgment is affirmed.