Raymond v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10609.) |
| Parties | RAYMOND v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harrison County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
Roberta Raymond was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and she appeals. Affirmed.
James T. Casey and Sam B. Hall, both of Marshall, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
From the state's evidence, officers, acting under a search warrant, searched the dwelling of the appellant and found therein a quantity of whisky.
Bill No. 1 reflects the action of the court in declining to entertain the preliminary motion to suppress the testimony of Henderson, Gilstrap, and Ezell upon the ground that the facts within their knowledge were obtained through the search of a private dwelling without a search warrant. The bill fails to show the evidence adduced or that the averments in the motion were ascertained by the trial court to be true, nor does it show what evidence the state expected from the witnesses named. In these particulars the bill is incomplete even if the procedure was proper. Upon the latter point, however, the rule prevailing in this state does not sanction the procedure attempted. If the averments in the bill were true, the appellant's rights would be fully protected by objection to the evidence when it was offered. See Foster v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 121, 282 S. W. 600.
Bill No. 2 complains of the refusal of the court to read to the jury a special charge instructing them that in order to convict the accused it was essential that the state have evidence in addition to that showing that the appellant possessed a quantity of whisky beyond a quart. In the main charge the court gave an instruction embracing the substance of the definition of "prima facie evidence" such as is contained in the case of Floeck v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 314, 30 S. W. 794. Where the possession of intoxicating liquor in an amount beyond a quart is proved, a prima facie case of possession for the purpose of sale is made out. Such is the statute, chapter 22, Acts 38th Leg. 2d Called Sess. Such proof is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and to support a verdict of guilty. See Newton v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 267 S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...search, it would be proper to exclude it when it was offered. See Fowler v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 290 S. W. 1104; Raymond v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 291 S. W. 251. Under the practice in this state, if evidence is offered in a criminal case which the accused thinks is inadmissible, he shall ob......
-
Williams v. State
...Such a motion is not recognized procedure in this jurisdiction. Dominguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 275 S.W.2d 677, and Raymond v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 291 S.W. 251. He next complains of the introduction of the jacket into evidence. As will be seen from a statement of the facts herein, th......
-
Arrington v. State, 28606
...motion to suppress evidence is not recognized in our procedure. Foster v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 121, 282 S.W. 600; Raymond v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 291 S.W. 251; Johnson v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 13 S.W.2d 114; Dominguez v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 124, 275 S.W.2d 677; Walker v. State, Te......
-
Cothran v. State, 21864.
...to the introduction of the evidence obtained as a result thereof. Foster v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 121, 282 S.W. 600; Raymond v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 291 S.W. 251; Buchanan v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 559, 298 S.W. 569; Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 150 S.W.2d 1042; Harkey v. State, Tex.Cr.A......