Hudson v. State, 25425
| Decision Date | 31 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 25425,25425 |
| Citation | 243 S.W.2d 841,156 Tex.Crim. 612 |
| Parties | HUDSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is transporting illicit alcoholic beverage on which no state tax had been paid; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.
An agent of the liquor control board testified that he received a telephone call to the effect that a certain truck was being loaded with whiskey in Louisiana. In answer to this call he went to the state line where the truck was pointed out to him, and he observed appellant riding in the cab. As soon as the truck entered Panola County, where the prosecution was had, the witness stopped the truck and found it to be loaded with whiskey bearing no Texas tax stamps. In the cab he found an invoice from a wholesale whiskey house in Louisiana made out to appellant for a quantity of whiskey. He then placed appellant under arrest.
Appellant moved to quash the information, alleging that the charge consisted of two separate and distinct offenses; i. e., unlawful transportation and unlawfully failing to pay the state tax. We do not so view it. Article 666-3a(4), Vernon's Ann. Penal Code, names sixteen means by which one may be criminally connected with untaxed alcoholic or 'illicit beverage'. To transport is one of these. Austin v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 146 S.W.2d 990.
The trial court properly overruled the motion.
Bills of exception 1 and 2 seek to raise the question of the insufficiency of this Court passes upon the sufficiency of the evidence in all cases whether raised by a bill or not. The finding of the invoice made out to appellant for the whiskey in question, together with the other facts, made out the state's case.
Bill of exception 3 complains because the state's witness was not required to reveal the name of the person from whom he got the information upon which he based his right to search the truck on probable cause. In Sadler v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 318, 40 S.W.2d 91, this Court said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drouin v. State
...the officer to give the name of the informant when testifying about this arrest in the absence of the jury.' Also cf. Hudson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 243 S.W.2d 841. While there is much logic and sound reasoning in the Priestly case and the quoted portion of its opinion clearly points o......
-
Phillips v. State
...the court refused to require him to do so. The ruling of the trial court finds support in the holdings of this Court. Hudson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 243 S.W.2d 841, 245 S.W.2d 259, and cases there cited; Shafer v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 558, 209 S.W.2d 599. See also People v. Gonzales, 1......
-
Dixon v. State, 4 Div. 368
...251 Ala. 467, 38 So.2d 209; Underhill, Crim.Evid., 5th Ed., § 327; Brown v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 394, 120 S.W.2d 1057; Hudson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 243 S.W.2d 841, 245 S.W.2d We have examined the entire record as required by statute (Code 1940, T. 15, § 389), and find it free of any ......
-
Davenport v. State
...251 Ala. 467, 38 So.2d 209; Underhill, Crim.Evid., 5th Ed., § 327; Brown v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 394, 120 S.W.2d 1057; Hudson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 243 S.W.2d 841, 245 S.W.2d 259.' (Emphasis In McCray v. State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967) the court, ......