Gonzales v. State
Decision Date | 15 May 1929 |
Docket Number | (No. 12566.) |
Citation | 18 S.W.2d 618 |
Parties | GONZALES v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bee County; T. M. Cox, Judge.
Damacio Gonzales was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W. T. Scarborough, of Kenedy, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Officers searched appellant's residence and found therein a large quantity of intoxicating liquor. On the trial of the case the court determined that the search warrant was void, but reached the conclusion that appellant consented to the search. Timely objection was interposed to the testimony of the officers touching the result of the search on the ground that the search warrant was void. In the absence of the jury one of the officers testified that when they went to the door of appellant's dwelling he invited them in; that they saw a bottle of whisky and beer bottles on a table in the room they entered, and stacks of beer cases along the wall; that he, the officer, picked up the bottle of whisky and said to appellant, "I am an officer and want to search your place;" that appellant replied, "All right;" that he did not tell appellant, at the time he told him he wanted to search his place, that he was armed with a search warrant; that he delivered a copy of the search warrant to appellant after appellant had stated that it was all right for him to search the place. We are of the opinion that the language used by appellant was sufficient to show a waiver, and sustain the action of the trial court in admitting the testimony of the officers. One may consent to the search of his premises, and thereby waive irregularities in the search warrant, or dispense with the search warrant altogether. Hall v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 365, 288 S. W. 202; Williams v. State (No. 11,976) 17 S.W. (2d) 56, delivered November 14, 1928, and not yet [officially] reported.
In his argument to the jury the district attorney used language as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
MacKenna v. Ellis
...219, 233 S.W. 2d 493 (certificate of approval established fact that motion for instructed verdict was made); Gonzales v. State, 1929, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 18 S.W.2d 618; Barnett v. State, 1929, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 17 S.W.2d 831; Benavides v. State, 1929, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 14 S.W.2d 67 (establi......
-
Valtiero v. State
...S.W.2d 964; Rountop v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 615, 100 S.W.2d 706; Mitchell v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 643, 6 S.W.2d 753; Gonzales v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 18 S.W.2d 618; Huff v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 102 S.W. 407; Tillman v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 10, 225 S.W. 165; Hubbard v. State, 94 Tex.......
-
Beasley v. State, 22087.
...authorities: Rountop v. State, 131 Tex.Cr. R. 615, 100 S.W.2d 706; Mitchell v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 643, 6 S.W.2d 753; Gonzales v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 18 S.W.2d 618. Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission ......
-
Compton v. State, 23066.
...the opinion here expressed we refer to the following authorities: Frazier v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 217, 43 S.W.2d 597; Gonzales v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 18 S.W. 2d 618. Appellant also contends that the claimed consent was not voluntary and therefore the evidence found as a result of the ......