Lankford v. State
| Citation | 248 S.W. 389 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7234.) |
| Parties | LANKFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Wood County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
Harry Lankford was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Simpson, Lasseter & Simpson, of Tyler, and Jones & Jones, of Mineola, for appellant.
W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Wood county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed at four years in the penitentiary.
There are many bills of exception in this record, each of which we have considered, but in none of which do we find error save those complaining of the action of the trial court in failing and refusing to submit to the jury the law of accomplice testimony as hereinafter more fully set forth.
The indictment charged appellant with the possession of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquor for the purpose of sale. Two facts must be affirmatively shown by the proof in such case: First, the possession of the intoxicating liquor; second, that such possession was for the purpose of sale. Appellant was shown to have possessed a garage, one corner of which was cut off and called his office. In this office was found a large quantity of whisky in February, 1922. The evidence as to his possession of such liquor seems ample. As bearing on the issue of the purpose for which such possession was had on the part of appellant, the state proved by three witnesses that they had purchased liquor from him in 1921, at dates prior to November 15th, on which day the amendment to the Dean Law (Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼ et seq.) went into effect exempting purchasers of intoxicating liquor from being held as accomplices when testifying against parties who had sold such liquor. As to the sales made by appellant prior to said last-mentioned date, the witnesses testifying thereto were only the purchasers of such liquor, and were necessarily accomplices (Plachy v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 405, 239 S. W. 979), and the court should have instructed the jury that the fact of such sales could not be considered against the appellant unless his guilt thereof was shown by legal testimony. It is a well-settled rule that the guilt of one accused of crime cannot be legally shown by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or any number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrell v. State
...135 Tex.Crim. 205, 118 S.W.2d 312 (1938); Miller v. State, 122 Tex.Crim. 59, 53 S.W.2d 790, 791-92 (1932); Lankford v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. 442, 248 S.W. 389, 389-90 (1923); see also 8 MICHAEL J. MCCORMICK & THOMAS D. BLACKWELL, TEXAS CRIMINAL FORMS AND TRIAL MANUAL § 88.05 (Texas Practice 1......
-
Mitchell v. State
...such collateral crimes, unless it has been shown to their satisfaction that the accused is guilty thereof," Lankford v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 442, 248 S.W. 389 (1923), quoted approvingly in Wells v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 42 S.W.2d 607, 608-609 Now that we have the bifurcated trial procedu......
-
State v. Judd
... ... evidence, and not left to mere inferences. In support of such ... contention the appellant, among other cases, cited ... Baxter v. State , 91 Ohio St. 167, 110 N.E ... 456, Gart v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 66, ... State v. Stetson (Mo. Sup.) 222 S.W. 425, ... and Lankford v. State , 93 Tex. Crim. 442, ... 248 S.W. 389 ... In ... other words, it is the contention of the defendant that, if ... proof as to the commission of other offenses rests on a mere ... inference or inferences, such proof cannot legally be ... considered as a basis for making ... ...
-
James v. State
...Court's own observation. The charge of the Court should never assume the truth of any controverted issue of fact. In Lankford v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 442, 248 S.W. 389, this Court, speaking through Judge Lattimore, 'It is the settled law in this state that when evidence of collateral crimes ......