Court Opinion

ID: 9768460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:04:11.494926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:40.978460
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant complains herein and again asserts the illegality of the search of the automobile in which he was found sitting with a blue bag against his feet. We think this matter of the search of the automobile does not depend upon the provision of the charter of the city of Cleburne which allowed the arrest without a warrant of persons within that city under certain circumstances. We think that the officers were within their right to search upon probable cause and that they found beneath the appellant’s feet a collection of articles that would constitute, if properly arranged, a bomb that could be used not only for the purpose of entering a building or opening a safe but could also destroy human life if used in a certain manner.
So far as this record shows, Mr. Hill, the man who owned the automobile, did not complain of the search of his car after the appellant, as well as his companions, had been placed under arrest.
We think that the presence of a half empty bottle of whiskey in such bag under the appellant’s feet had no effect upon whether or not he was in possession of a bomb or the collection of articles that would constitute such bomb at such time, and was of no great import herein.
Appellant also complains of the fact that a large iron bar was found under a window of a building near which he and his companions were seen acting in a suspicious manner. We think that might have had some bearing before the jury in showing *514with what intent the appellant and his companions were in possession of a bomb which was dangerous to property as well as to human life.
It is worthy of note, however, that the sufficiency of an indictment in words and figures the same as the one herein presented has already been passed upon by this court in the recent case of Roach v. State, 160 Texas Cr. R. 347, 269 S.W. 2d 379, and was therein held to be sufficient to charge the elements of the offense.
Believing the proper disposition of the case to have been made in the original opinion, the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.