Gunter v. State

• Decision Date: 04 April 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 11384.)
• Citation: Gunter v. State, 4 S.W.2d 978, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928)
• Parties: GUNTER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

4 S.W.2d 978

GUNTER v. STATE.

(No. 11384.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1928.

Commissioner's Decision.

Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; C. O. Hamlin, Judge.

W. H. Gunter was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jones & Brown, of Breckenridge, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Officers had a search warrant for the search of the Walnut Rooms in the city of Breckenridge. Appellant, in company with his wife and one Cooper, drove up in a Chevrolet automobile and parked in the street at the curb next to said Walnut Rooms. Appellant owned the car. On parking the car, appellant and his companions went to the front of Walnut Rooms; the same being the main entrance to the building. Officers had completed their search of the house and were searching on the outside when appellant drove up. The officers did not know appellant nor his companions, and did not know to whom the Chevrolet car belonged. One of the officers followed appellant and his companions to the front entrance of the building for the purpose of ascertaining their identity. Another officer went to the car, searched it, and found therein a half gallon jar of whisky about two-thirds full and a quart jar about half full of whisky. Said officers were not armed with a warrant authorizing the search of the car, and did not know before making the search that it contained intoxicating liquor. The officer making the search testified that he had no more reason "to suspicion this car of containing intoxicating liquor than he would any other car that may have driven up to the Walnut Rooms and parked." He further stated that he would have searched any car he had seen driving up to said building.

Appellant objected to the receipt of the evidence touching the results of the search, on the ground that the search was made without a search warrant, and that the officers had no information or knowledge of facts constituting probable cause. The court overruled the objection and qualified appellant's bill of exception No. 1 as follows:

"The witness Deason testified that he had information that whisky was to be delivered to the Walnut Rooms, and that they were watching the premises for that reason, and would have searched any car stopping there during that time."

In Battle v. State, 105 Tex. Cr....