Freeman v. State

• Decision Date: 21 February 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 7477.)
• Citation: 249 S.W. 466
• Parties: FREEMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

249 S.W. 466

FREEMAN v. STATE.

(No. 7477.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 21, 1923.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; J. L. Manry, Judge.

Gilbert Freeman was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 245 S. W. 683, 684.

W. T. Norman, of Liberty, and Howth & O'Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Liberty county of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

There appears in the record the testimony of an accomplice who fully related facts pertaining to the manufacture of intoxicating liquor by himself in conjunction with appellant. Officers testified that on the day of appellant's arrest they went to his place, and in his smokehouse found a still bearing evidence of recent operation, and one that was older; also that they found on the premises liquor and mash in process of fermentation. The evidence amply supports the verdict.

Appellant complains by certain bills of exception of testimony to the effect that he had been seen on several occasions at or about the time of his arrest under the influence of liquor, drunk, and in an intoxicated condition. We would not deem such evidence of an immaterial character.

Appellant complains in his bill of exceptions No. ___ of the refusal of the court to permit him to prove statements made by certain other parties relative to their connection with the still and the making of liquor on appellant's premises. Such evidence would be hearsay, and therefore incompetent.

There is a bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of the court to compel the state to disclose to the jury what trade or agreement they had made with the accomplice witness. We know of no authority upholding the contention of appellant in this matter. The court accorded appellant the fullest liberty of inquiry of said witness upon cross-examination, and it does not appear that any effort of his to ascertain the facts desired in this regard was in any wise interfered with or prevented by the court.

Appellant endeavored to prove that the still in question was being operated and managed by one Krit Douglass and others. In its rebuttal the state was permitted to prove that said Krit Douglass was arrested and found guilty of making and selling whisky in the federal court at Beaumont, and that appellant paid his fine. Appellant having sought to evade punishment growing out of supposed manufacture of intoxicating liquor on his part by attempting to show that such liquor was manufactured, and the apparatus found on appellant's premises controlled, by said Douglass, we think evidence showing or tending fairly to show the interest of appellant in Krit Douglass and the connection of the two men with each other in relation to the manufacture and sale of such liquor would be admissible. We think the state entitled to prove that appellant paid the fine for...