Court Opinion

ID: 9766575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:53:44.739298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:23.811683
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S motion FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that the evidence is insufficient to show that he possessed the four one-half pints of whisky found in the car and the nearly full 4/5 quart of whisky thrown from the car because the evidence shows that his wife could have owned the whisky and had an equal opportunity to possess it with him, and that the state failed to disprove such outstanding hypothesis. In support of his contention, appellant cites and relies upon the case of Maddox v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. R. 151, 240 S.W. 2d 319.
Under the facts shown, we find no merit in the appellant’s contention.
The possession of liquor as contemplated by the Texas Liquor Control Act need not be exclusive and ownership is unnecessary. Huggins v. State, 146 Tex. Cr. R. 606, 177 S.W. 2d 269, and Bennett v. State, 160 Tex. Cr. R. 354, 271 S.W. 2d 284. More than one person can be guilty of possessing the same liquor for the purpose of sale. McSwain v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. R. 38, 230 S.W. 2d 227.
*202The rule announced in the Maddox case that, where the evidence shows an equal opportunity of others to possess the liquor, the evidence must disprove such outstanding hypothesis to be sufficient to show possession by the accused, is not applicable to the case at bar because the appellant was present when the whisky was found in and thrown from his car.
Appellant next insists that the conviction cannot stand because the evidence is insufficient to show that he possessed the eleven one-half pints of whisky found in the bar ditch.
It is not necessary that we again pass upon this contention because, under the evidence, it is sufficiently shown that appellant possessed the four one-half pints of whisky found in the car and the nearly full 4/5 quart of whisky thrown from the car, which is of a sufficient quantity to give rise to the statutory presumption that it was possessed for the purpose of sale.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.