Canales v. State
| Decision Date | 06 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5101.) |
| Citation | 206 S.W. 347 |
| Parties | CANALES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jackson County; John M. Green, Judge.
Rafael Canales was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
McCrory & Vance, of Edna, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for 18 months.
The indictment charged the sale to Ramon Sifuentes. The theory of the state was that an officer, desiring to entrap violators of the local option law, sent the party named in the indictment, Ramon Sifuentes, to purchase a bottle of whisky, giving him a $5 bill; that Ramon got the whisky and delivered it to the officer, together with $3.25 in change, stating that the price of the whisky was $1.75. It was in the nighttime, and the officer saw Ramon go to appellant's house and talk to appellant, and saw the appellant go to a cupboard and reach up and hand something to Ramon, and Ramon then handed appellant something out of his pocket, which the witness supposed to be money, and then the appellant ran his hand in his pocket and gave Ramon something, which he supposed to be change.
Ramon, the purchaser named in the indictment, appeared as a witness for appellant, and testified that it was his own whisky; that he had bought the whisky and placed it in the house without the knowledge of appellant; that he had gotten permission from appellant to leave a package in the house, and that he had several bottles of whisky, and left some of them in one place in the house and one of them in the closet; that when he went to the house for the whisky appellant was eating supper, and he asked appellant to hand him the bottle out of the dresser; that they then went to the pool-room, which seems to adjoin or is built onto the house in which appellant lived, and appellant gave him change for $5. He claimed that Yarbrough, the officer, owed him some money, and that he gave him the whisky and kept the $1.75, because Yarbrough had owed him $1.60 for a year. He claimed that he did not buy the whisky from appellant, and did not pay him any money, and that the whisky belonged to the witness, and not to appellant. It appeared that the witness had been indicted by the grand jury for making the sale.
Appellant claimed and testified that he did not sell the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...respectively in which there was no positive proof of participation by the accused in the act constituting the offense. Canales v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 212, 206 S. W. 347, was a case charging a sale of liquor in which there was no direct testimony of a sale by the accused. Ely v. State, 71 ......
-
Canales v. State
...is for the sale of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the local option prohibition law. On a former appeal this case was reversed. See 206 S. W. 347. The evidence on the former appeal, so far as it relates to the legal questions, is in substance the same as that herein, save that in this......