Machado v. State
| Decision Date | 23 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10230.) |
| Parties | MACHADO v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hays County; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.
Sebastian Machado was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
L. D. Hill, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., of Groesbeck, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., of Del Rio, for the State.
Conviction for transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
An officer watching the house of appellant on the night of the alleged offense observed him driving his automobile back and forth in a suspicious manner, and when appellant finally stopped the car the officer looked therein and found a gallon of whisky. When the case was called for trial appellant offered a motion in advance to suppress the testimony of the sheriff and direct a return of the liquor. On the trial the state offered in evidence a part of this motion, which was signed by appellant; appellant then offered the whole of the motion. In said motion it was admitted that a gallon of intoxicating liquor was in the possession of appellant and in his car on a public street in the city of San Marcos on the occasion in question.
There are four bills of exception in the record. No. 1 complains of the refusal of the court to grant the motion to return to appellant the liquor taken from his possession without a search warrant. No. 2 was taken to the refusal of appellant's motion to suppress the evidence regarding the finding in his possession of said liquor. No. 3 was taken to the admission of the testimony of the officer in regard to the movements of appellant on the night in question; the finding of the whisky in his car; the fact that appellant claimed the car; that he was on a public street, etc. No. 4 was to the refusal of the court to sustain a motion to exclude the testimony of the officer above referred to.
We have carefully examined each of these bills and have concluded that none of them present any reversible error. This court has uniformly declined to sanction the practice of passing upon motions to return intoxicating liquor or to suppress evidence in regard to the finding thereof, offered prior to the going into trial of one charged with violation of the liquor law. In Odenthal v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 290 S. W. 743, No. 9967, opinion handed down January 12, 1927, and Battle v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 568, 290 S. W. 762, No. 10505, opinion handed down January 12, 1927, we held the officer justified in searching an automobile being used for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, when it appeared from the facts that the officer had probable cause for believing same to be so used. Reference is had to said authorities for reasons and citation of authorities supporting the conclusion.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant seeks a rehearing on the ground that there was no probable cause for the search of his automobile, and that hence the search was illegal, and consequently the testimony of the officer as to his finding in appellant's car a gallon of whisky was inadmissible. If appellant's contention be sound that the testimony failed to sufficiently show probable cause, still it appearing that appellant admitted under oath that he had whisky in his car on the occasion referred to, which was found by the officer, and such sworn admission having been introduced in evidence before the jury on the trial in this case, this fact would render harmless the error, if any, of the admission of the testimony of the officer.
During the trial appellant put in evidence before the jury his own sworn motion made in this case on the same day as the trial, for the return to him of the whisky found by the officer in his car on the occasion which formed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. $30,660.00
...the law. The use of a motion to return illegally-seized property is a practice older than this Court. See Machado v. State, 112 Tex.Crim. 538, 17 S.W.2d 1060, 1061 (Tex.Crim.App.1929) (reviewing trial court's refusal to grant a motion to return illegally seized liquor). We have not created ......
-
Dade v. State
... ... to are United States v. Bateman, D.C., 278 F. 231; ... Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 285 F. 145; ... People v. Case, 220 Mich. 379, 190 N.W. 289, 27 ... A.L.R. 686; Houck v. State, 106 Ohio St. 195, 140 ... N.E. 112; and Machado v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 538, ... 17 S.W.2d 1060 ... The ... last cited case was one in which an officer looked in an ... automobile and found a gallon of whiskey. When the cause was ... first considered by the appellate court, said court seems to ... have been of the ... ...
-
State v. Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars
...opinion and the law. The use of a motion to return illegally-seized property is a practice older than this Court. See Machado v. State, 17 S.W.2d 1060, 1061 (Tex. 1929) (reviewing trial court's refusal to grant a motion to return illegally seized liquor). We have not created it, nor was Tob......
-
Foster v. State, 21787.
...waived. Countee v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 131, 44 S.W.2d 994; McLaughlin v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 4 S.W.2d 54; Machado v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 538, 17 S.W.2d 1060; Flower v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 69, 18 S.W.2d 659; Montgomery v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 469, 31 S.W.2d Moreover, under the provi......