Miers v. State, 15831.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 15831.,15831. |
| Parties | MIERS v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McCulloch County; E. J. Miller, Judge.
G. L. Miers was convicted for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Shropshire & Sanders, of Brady, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
The appellant insists that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The evidence introduced by the state shows that Love Kimbrough, sheriff of McCulloch county, together with other officers armed with a search warrant, went to a house on the Mason road in the south part of the town of Brady. The said sheriff testified that he knew where the appellant was living on and at that date and he was living in the house which they searched on the Mason road; that they found in said house a quart of alcohol and about three pints of whisky and a bunch of near beer and a lot of empty bottles, both pint and beer bottles, and a bunch of corks and crowns for these beer bottles. A quart of alcohol was in a quart bottle, and the whisky was in a five-gallon container. He also found a lot of corks that would fit in the bottles and also a capper. He further testified that at the time a young man by the name of Raymond Johnson and also one Eugene Whitehead were staying with the defendant, G. L. Miers. He further testified that he did not know how long the appellant had been living at the house but he had been there several weeks. While appellant was living at said house, he, the sheriff, had been by that place a number of times both at night and during the daytime, and, when he passed there, there was considerable traffic around that house and a number of cars coming and going, and there would be several cars parked there at one time.
The state also introduced in rebuttal a witness by the name of Joe Myrick who testified that he was night watchman in Brady and knew the appellant, G. L. Miers, and knew where he was living at the time he went with the sheriff to his place. He testified that, when they got to the house searched, the appellant was at home. Raymond Johnson, Judge Sanders, and Dr. Powell were also at the house.
The appellant did not testify, but offered a witness by the name of James Snell. He testified that he had lived at the house prior to the time the appellant moved out there, and prior to the time he had lived there a Mrs. Mae Achteberg had lived in that house; that he moved in said house the day after the said Mrs. Achteberg moved out, and there were at that time a lot of empty beer bottles and other bottles there; that the stuff he found there was still there when he moved out; that the appellant and Eugene Whitehead moved in about three days after he moved out.
In his brief the appellant insists that the insufficiency of the evidence lies in the fact that there is just as strong evidence against the other parties found at the house at the time of the raid as there was against the appellant. We cannot assent to this contention. The sheriff's testimony showed that the house raided was the appellant's house rather than the house of any one else. His testimony along this line was as follows:
There is nothing in the evidence to show that anybody else was in possession of the house nor was there any such evidence offered in behalf of the appellant as would disprove his possession thereof.
The appellant also contends that under the facts in this case there was no presumption against him for possession of more than a quart of whisky because of the fact that it was shown by the testimony that Raymond Johnson and Eugene Whitehead also lived and stayed at said house, and the testimony did not show that the said Johnson or Whitehead did not own said liquor, and, if the said whisky and alcohol were possessed by the appellant and Raymond Johnson and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. State, 36848
...205, 33 S.W.2d 1069; Graves v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 591, 40 S.W.2d 100; Day v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 244, 42 S.W.2d 1013; Miers v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 60 S.W.2d 217; Fine v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 337, 68 S.W.2d 192; and Johns v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 206, 86 S.W.2d Appellant's last conte......
-
Welch v. State
...as a private dwelling.'" was sufficient to authorize the search of a garage some forty or fifty feet from the residence. See Miers v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 60 S. W.2d 217, The conclusion is reached that the rule announced in the Comeaux case, supra, is applicable and controlling here an......
-
Fennell v. State, 23560.
...nevertheless, possession for the purpose of sale being in another than one holding title or ownership thereof. See Miers v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 60 S.W.2d 217. If such be true, then in the event of the presence of more than 288 ounces such becomes a rebuttable proposition upon the part......