Court Opinion

ID: 9683912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:40:08.473842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:51.265929
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
In our original opinion we held, in effect, that one who purchases whisky in a wet area and transports that whisky into a dry area violates the law prohibiting the transportation of whisky in a dry area.
Appellant challenges the correctness of the conclusions expressed and charges that they are contrary to the express provisions of Art. 666-23a, Vernon’s P. C., which provides that “any person who purchases alcoholic beverages for his own consumption may transport same from a place where the sale thereof is legal to a place where the possession thereof is legal.” Walton v. State, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 335, 163 S. W. 2d 203; Hess v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 343, 168 S. W. 2d 250.
The statute mentioned is an exception to the application of the statute (Art. 666-4, Vernon’s P. C.) making unlawful the transportation of whisky in a dry area. Therefore, the accused, in order to receive the benefits thereof, must bring himself within the exceptions set forth.
In the instant case, the appellant made no effort to show that the exceptions mentioned in fact existed — that is, having purchased the whisky in a wet area, she was at the time transporting it for her own use. It follows, therefore, that appellant was at the time of her arrest engaged in the unlawful transportation of the whisky and that the officers were possessed of information constituting probable cause that whisky was being so transported.
We remain convinced that the search of the automobile in which appellant was riding, resulting in the finding of the six pints of whisky in her possession, was not unlawful.
*515The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.