Bennett v. State, 27075

Decision Date26 June 1954
Docket NumberNo. 27075,27075
PartiesKenneth Ray BENNETT, appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

E. A. Blair, Lubbock, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


Appellant was found guilty and assessed a fine of $200 and one year in jail under complaint and information which charged that he possessed beer and whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, after he had been previously convicted of a like offense.

The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is challenged.

The proof shows that on January 12, 1954, at about 7:20 A.M., two cars were involved in a collision at 40th Street and Avenue P, in Lubbock.

Witnesses who had observed the green Chevrolet Tudor prior to the accident testified that it was traveling at a speed of about fifty miles per hour; that when they arrived at the scene there were two persons in the Chevrolet.

One Gentry was in the driver's seat and appellant was beside him. They had apparently been thrown forward, appellant being against the instrument panel and windshield with the seat at his back.

Appellant complained of pain when effort was first made to get him out, but otherwise appears to have said nothing.

Gentry said to the witnesses, 'Can some of you gentlemen (or fellows) help us get this stuff out of here?'

Officers who arrived at the scene shortly thereafter took charge of the car and took therefrom 337 cans of beer, 7 four- fifth quarts of whisky and 2 four-fifth quarts of Vodka, a large part, if not all of which was between the front and rear seat of the Tudor Chevrolet, was visible and seen by the witnesses as they approached the car. Other containers were broken and the witnesses noticed the odor of alcohol about the car.

Proof was made of the prior conviction alleged to enhance the punishment, the evidence showing that the conviction was upon a plea of guilty to possession of whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale.

Appellant urges that this evidence shows the mere presence of appellant and points to the lack of evidence as to the ownership of the car; the fact that Gentry was evidently the driver, and the absence of testimony showing even so much as an acquaintance between appellant and Gentry. He relies upon authorities which are to the effect that where the evidence shows an equal opportunity of another or others to possess the liquor, the state must disprove such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Wise v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1982
    ...origin in liquor possession cases. Rodella v. United States, 286 F.2d 306 (9th Cir.1960). It was said in Bennett v. State, 160 Tex.Crim.App. 354, 271 S.W.2d 284 (1954) that possession of whiskey and beer for sale in a dry area means to exercise control over; that possession need not be excl......
  • Evans v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 28, 1979
    ...152 S.W.2d 174. . . . "Furthermore, possession need not be exclusive, and ownership is not essential to possession. Bennett v. Texas, (1954) 160 Tex.Cr.R. 354, 271 S.W.2d 284.2 If an objection had been made on specific grounds, but the basis for the objection was not reported in the record,......
  • Denny v. State, s. 43654
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 23, 1971
    ...the jury had before it sufficient evidence to conclude that all of the occupants had possession of the marihuana. See Bennett v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 354, 271 S.W.2d 284. Culmore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 447 S.W.2d 915, relied upon by the appellants, presents a somewhat different fact situati......
  • Evans v. State, 27065
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 6, 1954
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT