Rhodes v. State

• Decision Date: 30 March 1938
• Docket Number: No. 19565.,19565.
• Citation: 116 S.W.2d 395
• Parties: RHODES v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

116 S.W.2d 395

RHODES v. STATE.

No. 19565.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1938.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1938.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from Jefferson County Court at Law; C. N. Ellis, Judge.

Bessie Mae Rhodes, alias Bessie Mae Lewis, was convicted of possession of untaxed liquor, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

J. A. Veillon and D. F. Sanders, both of Beaumont, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for possession of untaxed liquor; punishment, a fine of $100.

The record shows that on August 11, 1937, agents of the Texas Liquor Control Board searched appellant's home, under and by virtue of a search warrant. Approximately one-half gallon of whisky was found in containers bearing no seal, stamp, or other evidence showing that the tax had been paid to the State.

Upon the trial of the case, appellant objected to all of the evidence discovered as a result of the search, because the description of the premises in the warrant was at variance with the actual location of her home. The part of the search warrant objected to reads as follows: "* * * A certain one story frame house located on Washington Street and being the first house NE of 950 Washington Street and being located between Holmes and Archie Streets in the City of Beaumont, Jefferson County, Tex., etc."

The testimony showed that the house which the officers searched was the first house northeast of 950 Gilbert street; that Gilbert street was formerly known and designated as Washington street, but its name had been changed in 1931 to Gilbert street. Most people, however, knew that Gilbert street was formerly designated as Washington street, and most people, when they spoke of Gilbert street, referred to it as Washington street.

It is true that a search warrant which does not sufficiently describe the premises to be searched is invalid. However, it is said in Tex.Juris. Vol. 38, p. 56, § 33: "While the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched, the description need not be precise or technically accurate; all that is required is that there be sufficient definiteness to enable the officer to locate the property and to distinguish it from other places in the community."

The rule is aptly stated in a Massachusetts case: "When in a criminal complaint, a descriptive averment designates a street by a name other than that given it by the municipal authorities, proof is competent that it is known by the one name as well as by the other; and evidence of persons living in the neighborhood and using the street for years, that they never heard it called by another name than that given in the complaint, is sufficient." See Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Albert R. White, claimant, 113 Mass. 208.

...