Rhodes v. State, 19881.
| Decision Date | 02 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 19881.,19881. |
| Citation | 120 S.W.2d 1070 |
| Parties | RHODES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; Jack Varner, Judge.
Sontie Rhodes was convicted of possession of whisky for purpose of sale in a dry area, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Adams & McAlister, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for possession of whisky for purpose of sale in dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $200.
It appears from the record that on the 30th day of June, four officers went to the home of appellant to make a search for whisky. Upon their arrival, there was present at the house besides appellant, two other negroes. Appellant invited the officers who appeared at his front door into his house. After they had entered, they informed him that they intended to search for liquor. He inquired as to whether they had a search warrant and they replied that they had none. Two of the officers left to secure one while two remained and talked to appellant. He finally told them where the beer and whisky was located and informed them that if they cared to search, they might just as well go ahead, as they would find it anyhow. They then found the liquors upon which this prosecution is based.
Appellant's contention is that the search was illegal and the evidence discovered as a result thereof was not admissible in evidence against him. We cannot agree with him. He gave his consent to the search before the officers returned with a search warrant, thereby waiving the same.
By bills of exceptions numbers six to ten, inclusive, appellant complains because the court permitted the county attorney to prove by the county clerk that he had examined the minutes of the Commissioners' Court and found that an election was held within and for the County of Nacogdoches on the 8th day of March, 1906, which resulted in favor of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in said county. That the Commissioners' Court canvassed the returns and passed an order declaring the result of said election. The clerk was then asked by the county attorney if the allegations in the information were correct, to which the witness replied in the affirmative. Appellant objected thereto on the ground that it was a conclusion of the witness and an opinion; that it was hearsay and not the best evidence, since the records thereof were the best evidence.
We think appellant's contention must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fletcher v. State, 41678
...over the State's objection, under the circumstances here presented. Preston v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 72, 48 S.W. 581; Rhodes v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 422, 120 S.W.2d 1070 and cases therein cited; Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 4th ed., § 102, p. 128; Texas Law of Evidence, McCormick and Ray, §......
-
Gutierrez v. State, 13-86-008-CR
...of the document is not admissible over timely objection unless the record is lost, destroyed, or unobtainable. Rhodes v. State, 120 S.W.2d 1070, 1071 (Tex.Crim.App.1938); see also Fletcher v. State, 437 S.W.2d 849, 851-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1968). Here, the State did not show that it was unable ......
-
United States v. Haun
...is reflected by the defendant's earlier incriminatory statement, State v. Guest (1921), 118 S.C. 130, 110 S.E. 112; Rhodes v. State (1938), 135 Tex.Crim. 422, 120 S.W.2d 1070, and his assisting the officers actively in locating and seizing the weapon, Windsor v. United States, C.C. A.6th (1......
-
Vallee v. State
...up his hand and brought a sack of marijuana containing some 500 grains thereof. From the syllabus in the case of Rhodes v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 422, 120 S.W.2d 1070, we take the following: 'Where officers went to a home to search for whisky without a search warrant, but owner invited them i......