Court Opinion

ID: 9654706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:47:56.840677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:33.759112
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Upon the presentation of its evidence-in-chief, the state proved by one of the arresting officers the following:
“We asked them what they had in the turtle — we asked them what they had in the back, and they said they didn’t have anything, in fact, they said they hadn’t — they had just bought the car, they hadn’t had it but 30 days, and the back never had been opened, and I asked them to let me have the keys and Coleman Steen and Eddie Cook both got out of the car, and went back there and he handed me the keys to the turtle.” (Emphasis, supplied.)
Appellant insists that such statement exculpates him from guilt of the transportation of the beer found in the turtle back of the car and for which he stands here convicted. He further insists that inasmuch as there is no testimony contradicting such statement, then as a matter of law the state’s case fails because it has not disproved the exculpatory statement mentioned.
An exculpatory statement is one which clears or tends “ ‘to clear from alleged fault or guilt; excusing.’ ” Moore v. State, 124 Tex. Cr. R. 97, 60 S. W. 2d 453.
The statement referred to is not exculpatory. It will be *82noted that every fact included in the statement could have been true and still appellant would be guilty, for, regardless of when or by whom the beer was placed in the turtle back of the car, if appellant knew the beer was in the automobile and transported it he would be guilty. The claimed exculpatory statement does not exculpate him of such knowledge. Moreover, the state did not rely upon the claimed exculpatory statement to show appellant’s guilty connection with the transportation of the beer, but made a prima facie case of his guilt by the finding of the beer in the car which he was driving.
We remain convinced that the facts warrant the jury's conclusion of guilt.
The state, in proving the publication of the order putting local option into effect, relied upon and introduced in evidence what appears to be a marginal reference upon the order of the commissioners court canvassing the returns and declaring the result of the local option election as it appeared in the minutes of the commissioners’ court. The reference reads as follows:
“ (The above order was duly published by posting copies (of the same at three public places within the time (prescribed by law for the length of time required (by law.”
“Bailey Anderson Bailey Anderson”
The caption to the order canvassing returns and declaring the result shows that Bailey Anderson was county judge of Martin County.
We are constrained to agree that the certificate was sufficient to constitute prima facie evidence that the order declaring the result of the election had been published as required by law.
Appellant, in reliance upon his contention that the certificate is insufficient, cites Watson v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 632, 122 S. W. 2d 311. In that case the certificate of publication showed, upon its face, that publication was made before the election was held. Such is not true of the instant certificate.
Believing that a correct conclusion was reached originally, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.