Henderson v. State
| Citation | 1 S.W.2d 300 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11178.) |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Cass County; Hugh Carney, Judge.
Albert Henderson was convicted of possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Howard A. Carney, of Atlanta, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Punishment is one year in the penitentiary.
When the state placed officers upon the witness stand and proposed to prove by them what they found in appellant's private residence as a result of a search, objection was interposed on the ground that the state had not shown that the officers had a valid search warrant. The district attorney then asked the witness if they had a search warrant, to which question the objection was made that the warrant was the best evidence. Upon further inquiry by the district attorney, still over objection, it developed that the officers did not have the warrant with them at the trial, but thought it was in the office of the justice of the peace. Without further effort on the part of the state to produce the warrant, or to show its loss and prove its regularity, the state was permitted to prove what was found by the officers in the residence, the evidence being criminative in its nature, over the objection that the state had failed to show that the witness had a valid search warrant.
We perceive nothing objectionable in the statement of the officer that they had a search warrant. This was proof only of the fact that they were in possession of a warrant. The real question is, having proved only that the officers had a search warrant, without any showing that it was regular on its face, had the state laid a sufficient predicate to permit evidence as to the result of the search? Our present statutes, notably articles 4a and 727a, C. C. P. (1925), place the receipt of evidence secured by search of a private residence somewhat on the same basis as the confession of the accused which is excluded by statute unless taken under certain conditions (article 727, 1925 C. C. P.), which requires a predicate to be laid by the state which prima facie shows that the formalities have been complied with before the confession becomes admissible. Upon the exact point now before us, we said in Chorn v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 298 S. W. 290:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schepps v. State, 40895
...... He relies upon Chorn v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 521, 298 S.W. 290; Henderson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 1 S.W.2d 300; Skiles v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 2 S.W.2d 436; Humphreys v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 304, 31 S.W.2d 631; Taylor v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 268, 49 S.W.2d 459; Brown v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 322, 313 S.W.2d 297. See also Vines v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d ......
-
Mattei v. State
...397 S.W.2d 868; Nunez v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 455, 329 S.W.2d 93; Brown v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 322, 313 S.W.2d 297; Henderson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 1 S.W.2d 300; Blackburn v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 384, 168 S.W.2d 662. See also Ciulla v. State, 434 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Civ.App.); 11 Tex.Di......
-
State v. McMilliam
...100 So. 674; Cuevas v. City of Gulfport, 134 Miss. 644, 99 So. 503; Johnson v. State, 155 Tenn. 628, 299 S.W. 800; Henderson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 1 S.W.2d 300; Skiles v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 2 S.W.2d 436; State v. Littleton, 108 W.Va. 494, 151 S.E. 713; State v. Joseph, 100 W.Va.......
-
Ortega v. State, 43317
...F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1965), the Court held that trial tactics which do not work as planned are not basis for relief. In Henderson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 1 S.W.2d 300, the objection was that the State had not shown that the officers had a valid search warrant. In the present case, no iss......