Case Name: DEAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-01-13
Citations: 279 S.W. 461
Docket Number: No. 9609
Parties: DEAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 279
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
DEAN v. STATE.
(No. 9609.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 13, 1926.)
C. C. Small, of Wellington, for appellant.^
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty.* of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was given three years in the penitentiary, upon trial in the district court of Wheeler county for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and appeals.
Brown was a state witness. He said he came with appellant in a car in which a keg of whisky was transported from some point in Oklahoma to Shamrock, Tex.; that said keg was then hidden, but later, at appellant's direction, he went to where the keg was, poured out two gallons of whisky, and delivered same to Trout and Denham. Trout swore that he had made arrangements with appellant to get the whisky. The trial court refused to tell'the jury that Brown was an accomplice, or to submit the-question to them as an issue of fact for their decision. His/ charge was excepted to for failing to' do one or both of said things. The learned trial judge was in error in this matter. Only' transporters, purchasers, and possessors, who become witnesses in liquor cases are relieved from'the taint of being accomplices if having guilty connection with the offense. The liquor statutes penalize him who x delivers intoxicating liquor to others. Admitting that Brown was not an accomplice by reason of his having transported the keg of whisky and that same was in the possession of appellant at the point where hidden, still, when Brown poured out and delivered a quantity of said whisks-, he thus was guilty of a crime in immediate relation to the transaction which formed the basis of the charge against appellant. One who delivers intoxicating liquor in this state is by statute made a felon. Brown sustaining such relation to the transaction thereby became an accomplice, and the court should so have told the jury. Cate v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 611, 272 S. W. 210; Miller v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 937, 263 S. W. 919; Dawson v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 408, 261 S. W. 1050. The failure to charge $>n accomplice testimony was called to the trial court's attention by proper exception. Por the refusal to charge that Brown was an accomplice the case must be reversed. Howard v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 164. 233 S. W. 847.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.