Jamison v. State

• Decision Date: 19 January 1955
• Docket Number: No. 27301,27301
• Citation: 277 S.W.2d 725,161 Tex.Crim. 428
• Parties: Sonny JAMISON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 725

277 S.W.2d 725

161 Tex.Crim. 428

Sonny JAMISON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27301.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1955.

On Rehearing March 16, 1955.

Cunningham, Cole & Southerland, Bonham, for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully possessing whisky and gin in a dry area, for the purpose of sale, and his punishment assessed at 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The state offered evidence to the effect that the home of appellant, being the premises located at 1408 Franklin Street in Bonham, Fannin County, Texas, occupied by appellant, was searched under authority of a search warrant.

The warrant and affidavit therefor described the premises to be searched as: 'a private dwelling located in Fannin County, Texas, described as about a four room house painted white and facing west located on the east side of Franklin Street in Bonham, Fannin County, Texas, house number 1408, and all outbuildings and vehicles on the above described premises, and being the premises occupied by, in charge of and under the control of Sonny Jamison.'

The search resulted in the finding and seizure of several half-pints of whisky. Two half-pints were found under the east side of the house, and ten half-pints were found 'in a sack under a bush in the northwest corner of the yard about 5 steps from the sidewalk and about 15 or 20 steps from the northwest corner of the house.'

The evidence further shows 'that there was a fence between the house of Sonny Jamison and the house to the north of Sonny Jamison's house, and that the liquor found in a sack under a bush was on the same side of that fence as Sonny Jamison's house'; that the house was situated in a Negro settlement on a narrow lot with houses close together.

The officers and state witnesses testified that they did not know the official designation of the street where the search was made, and did not know the property lines of the various property owners along the street.

One of the officers was recalled, after he had again visited the location, and testified that the street where the search was made was designated as Franklin Avenue. This was further shown by a copy of the plat of that part of the City of Bonham, and by the testimony of appellant's attorney. Mr. Cole, the attorney, further testified that he did not know of his own knowledge whether there were other thoroughfares situated in Bonham which went by the name of Franklin.

Appellant attacks the admissibility of the evidence obtained as a result of the search, contending that the warrant was not sufficient to authorize the search.

The evidence mentioned shows that the street upon which appellant resided was known to the witnesses as Franklin Street, and there is nothing to show that there was any other thoroughfare in Bonham bearing the name Franklin.

Occupancy and ownership as stated in the affidavit may be looked to in determining whether the premises searched were those described in the affidavit and search warrant. Wood v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 243 S.W.2d 31; Crumpton v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 54, 178 S.W.2d 273.

The trial court did not err in failing to exclude the evidence because the official designation of the street upon which the premises was located was Franklin Avenue rather than Franklin Street.

Appellant complains that the trial court should have given a...