Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6592.) |
| Citation | 238 S.W. 221 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Brazos County; W. C. Davis, Judge.
Charlie Anderson was convicted of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appeal is from a judgment of conviction of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Thornton, a witness for the state, testified that under a lease appellant was in possession of a part of the farm belonging to the witness upon which there was a house; that he saw the appellant in the act of making whisky, using the still which was in his possession in the house; that the appellant told him he was making whisky and delivered to the witness three jugs containing whisky.
The sheriff found a still in the house mentioned and three jugs of whisky in possession of the witness Thornton. He also found in appellant's sleeping apartment, which was remote from the building in which the still was situated, a small bottle containing whisky. Another witness testified that he saw the appellant coming to the home of the witness Thornton and bringing jugs with him; that these jugs were left at the home of the witness Thornton. The wife of Thornton testified that the appellant brought jugs of whisky to her house.
The indictment contained counts charging the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; also charged the unlawful possession of equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The appellant endeavored to have the state's counsel designate upon which offense he would rely for a conviction. The refusal of the court to compel the election is made the subject of complaint. The charge embraced counts covering both offenses. The verdict specifically designates the count charging the unlawful manufacture as the one upon which the conviction rests. The action of the court was not error. The evidence supporting each of the offenses was the same. They carried the same penalty, and were properly embraced in separate counts in the same indictment under the rule permitting the pleading to be so shaped that different phases of the evidence may be met. The precedents upon the subject are collated in Collins v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 166, 178 S. W. 345, to which we refer.
The court instructed that the witness Thornton was an accomplice, and that his testimony alone would not suffice to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. State
...Tex. Cr. R. 345, 247 S. W. 867; Davis v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 246 S. W. 395; Copeland v. State, 244 S. W. 395; Anderson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 238 S. W. 221. That the still had been operated at the place indicated by the state's witness is not seriously combatted. The identity ......
-
Mathis v. State
...section 729; Thielepape v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 493, 231 S. W. 769; Casteel v. State, 151 Ark. 69, 235 S. W. 386; Anderson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 238 S. W. 221; Land v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 470, 247 S. W. Upon the same principle, the trail leading from appellant's home to the still......
-
Thomas v. State
...unidentified as coming from a still possessed by the accused, has been held admissible as a relevant circumstance. Anderson v. State, 238 S. W. 221, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 183. One of the well-settled doctrines in practice is that, if testimony be material and relevant to an issue in the case on tr......
-
Newton v. State
...the manufacture of liquor only, and that proof of sales was inadmissible. The decisions are against this contention. Anderson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 238 S. W. 221. This prosecution having arisen at a time when the purchaser was an accomplice, it was also permissible for the state to ......