Bramlett v. State

• Decision Date: 12 November 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 7320.)
• Parties: BRAMLETT v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

268 S.W. 739

BRAMLETT v. STATE.

(No. 7320.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 12, 1924.

Rehearing Denied February 18, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Brown County; J. O. Woodward, Judge.

W. W. Bramlett was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.

T. R. Mears, of Gatesville, for appellant.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Brown county of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

The court did not err in refusing to quash the indictment for its failure to charge that the liquor was not transported for the personal use of appellant. Copeland v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 554, 244 S. W. 818. Nor was it necessary for the indictment to charge that the liquor was transported for the purpose of sale. Stringer v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 46, 241 S. W. 159. Appellant was arrested in Brown county in possession of some 3½ gallons of whisky. He did not take the stand in his own behalf, nor did he introduce a single witness.

Appellant complains of the refusal of a special charge in which he sought to have the jury told that, if he had in his possession the intoxicating liquor as charged in the indictment, but same was for his own personal use, and not for sale, he should be acquitted. We do not think the charge called for by the evidence, nor that it presents a correct proposition of law. Under the unquestioned testimony, appellant was transporting said 3½ gallons of intoxicating liquor through Brown county at the time he was arrested. There appears a statement made by a state witness, who was accompanying appellant on his trip, who stated on cross-examination that, as appellant was passing through Hamilton county, going toward Brownwood, he got out of the car at a certain place, and got the whisky, and put it in the car, and that he told witness that he had rheumatism of the kidneys, and that the doctors told him to drink it. Neither appellant nor any other person testified that in fact he was afflicted with any disease, nor is it made to appear that in any kind of good faith he needed the application of liquor or anything else for any physical ailment.

The testimony as to the statement made by appellant to the witness Pruitt was hearsay. It is not the law of this state that one may transport liquor, and escape the consequences of such violation by claiming that he had it for his own personal use, and not for sale.

Appellant complains of the refusal...