Buchannan v. State, 13340.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 13340.,13340. |
| Citation | 25 S.W.2d 838 |
| Parties | BUCHANNAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Knox County; Isaac O. Newton, Judge.
W. J. Buchannan was convicted of possessing potable liquor containing more than 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Jas. A. Stephens, of Benjamin, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Possession of potable liquor containing in excess of 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year and six months.
The residence of the appellant was searched, and a quantity of home-brew beer was found by the officers. Contending that the search warrant was invalid, the testimony of the officers showing the result of the search was opposed by the appellant. It appears from the bill of exceptions that, when the search warrant was issued and delivered to the sheriff, it was incomplete, and was altered by the insertion therein of the initials of the appellant. The affidavit was likewise changed. The alteration was with the verbal consent of the magistrate who issued the warrant. The warrant was invalid. See Cornelius on Search and Seizure, p. 394, § 165; Sherow v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 650, 290 S. W. 754.
The testimony of the officers touching the result of the search was inadmissible and improperly received. Article 727a, Code Cr. Proc. 1925; Chapin v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 477, 296 S. W. 1095.
Excluding the testimony of the result of the search, there is apparently an absence of evidence touching the contents of the liquid which was possessed by the appellant. There is testimony that a chemist examined two bottles of liquid which he received by mail; that it contained in excess of 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume, but the identity of the liquid which the chemist examined with that possessed by the appellant is not in the record, save through the evidence of the sheriff revealing the result of the illegal search. There was other testimony to the effect that the appellant had sold on two or three occasions what was described as "home-brew." There was produced before the jury two or three bottles of liquid which was admitted to have come from the appellant's premises, but as to the contents of these bottles there is found no testimony in the record. This court is without judicial knowledge of the alcoholic contents of home-brew. See Bracken v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee
...change or unless the original affiant performs some corporal act which would constitute an oath. * * *' See also Buchannan v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 418, 25 S.W.2d 838 (insertion of initials), United States v. Mitchell et al., D.C., 274 F. 128 (insertion of apartment number before street addr......
-
U.S. v. Merritt, 88-1866
...even if approved by the magistrate, invalidates the warrant. In support of this contention the defendant cites Buchannan v. State, 114 Tex.Crim. 418, 25 S.W.2d 838 (1930). In Buchannan the court held that additions made to a warrant, after the affidavit is sworn to and the warrant signed, i......
-
Santos v. State
...an alteration of the affidavit so as to render the warrant void. Reliance is had, among other authorities, upon Buchannan v. State, 114 Tax.Cr.R. 418, 25 S.W.2d 838. Though the opinion does not reveal such facts, the record does show that the Justice of the Peace in that case testified that......