Case Name: ODNEAL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-29
Citations: 272 S.W. 784
Docket Number: No. 8839
Parties: ODNEAL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 784–786

Head Matter:
ODNEAL v. STATE.
(No. 8839.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 29, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Jun10, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;364( 19 — Statement by defendant that he owned whisky held admissible as res gestae.
In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquors, a statement by defendant to arresting officer that he and not the driver of the car was the owner of the whisky was admissible as res gestae, having been made coincident with discovery of the commission of the offense and with the arrest.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;780(l) — Charge that co-transporter’s testimony must be corroborated properly refused.
In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquors, refusal to charge that evidence of driver of the car must be corroborated held justified, since under chapter 61, Acts 37th Leg. 1st Called Sess. (1921) adding section 2c to Acts 1919, 2d Called Sess c. 78 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588%a3), a cotrans-porter of intoxicating liquor is not an accomplice when a witness in the trial.
3. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(20) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for transporting ■ intoxicating liquors.
Evidence held to sustain conviction against defendant as principal in transporting intoxicating liquors. '
On Rehearing.
4. Criminal law &wkey;>l 169(2) —Admitting defendant’s statement of ownership of whisky, if error, held harmless.
In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquors, admitting'.defendant’s statement of ownership to arresting officer, if error, held harmless in view of subsequent uneontradicted testimony of two witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; P. E. Wilcox, Judge.
Gunby Odneal was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Affirmed,
B. IT. Gafford, of Sherman, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin,' for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Grayson qounty for the offense of transporting intoxicating liquors and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The state's testimony shows that the defendant was in a Eord car with one Olin Vestal, and that the officers stopped the car in Grayson county and found corn whisky, which was intoxicating, in said car. There were about 20 half-gallon fruit jars of whisky in the car. The state used the witness Olin Vestal and proved by him that the whisky belonged to this appellant, and that he had bought it in Oklahoma and had brought it into Grayson county across the Oklahoma line. The testimony further shows that the car belonged to Olin Vestal, and that he was driving the car.
Appellant's first bill of exception complains of the action of the court in permitting the state to prove that at the time appellant was arrested he (appellant) said to the officer arresting him, "You are not going to arrest Vestal, are you? It is not his whisky; it is mine. He hasn't' got anything to do with it." This testimony was clearly admissible as res gestre. Copeland v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 249 S. W. 495.
What has just been said,with reference to bill of'exception No. 1 also applies to bill of exception No. 2, which raises practically the same question. _
By bill of exception No. 3 complaint is made of the court's action in failing to instruct the jury that the witness Vestal is an accomplice, and in failing to give a proper charge on the theory that the said witness is an accomplice.- This witness was not an accomplice, and the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that his testimony must be corroborated. Chapter 61, Acts of Thirty-Seventh Legislature, 1st Called Sess., adding section 2c to Acts Thirty-Sixth Leg. 2d Called Sess. c. 78 (Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼a3); Bailey v. State, 271 S. W. 627, decided by this court April 1, 1925, not yet [officially] reported.
Under the express terms of the statute above cited, a cotransporter of intoxicating liquor is directly excluded from the terms of the statute naming those who are accomplices.
By bill of exception No. 4 appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. We have very carefully examined the statement of facts, and have reached the conclusion, not only that the evidence is sufficient, but it seems to be practically undisputed that the appellant is guilty as a principal of transporting intoxicating liquor, as charged in the indictment.
Finding no error in the record, it is our opinion that the judgment should in all things be affirmed.
PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<§xs5For ether cases see same topic and KEV-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and indexes
(&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KBY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes