Skiles v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10312.) |
| Citation | 2 S.W.2d 436 |
| Parties | SKILES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wood County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
Houston Skiles was convicted of possessing articles constituting equipment for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Jones & Jones, of Mineola, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The offense is the possession of articles constituting equipment for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The appellant's dwelling house and outhouses connected therewith were searched by an officer claiming to act under a search warrant. The warrant was not produced at the trial. The officer testified that he did not have the search warrant at the time of the trial. He did not know where it was, nor by whom it was issued, but said it was issued by either Judge French or Charley Goldsmith. Quoting, he said:
"I do not know where it is now; it is either at Judge French's office or Charley Goldsmith's; we handle so many of those things I can't keep up with all of them."
The witness was unable to relate the contents of the warrant, and neither of the persons named by him as possessing it was called as a witness, nor is the failure to do so in any manner explained. Upon a proper predicate showing loss and diligence, a search warrant may be proved by parol, and proof of the substance would suffice. Wharton's Crim. Ev. (10th Ed.) §§ 207-211; Chorn v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. Rep. 521, 298 S. W. 292; Gonzales v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. Rep. 508, 21 S. W. 253; Dudley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 58 S. W. 111. The sufficiency of the predicate for the introduction of evidence obtained under a search warrant is for the trial court, and the production of a warrant regular on its face will be sufficient to justify the receipt of evidence of the result of the search, unless the accused show that the warrant was issued on an insufficient affidavit or otherwise rendered void. Chorn v. State, supra; Henderson v. State (No. 11178, Tex. Cr. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 300, not yet [officially] reported. In the present instance, the warrant was not produced, nor was its loss or contents proved. It therefore follows that no proper predicate was laid for the introduction of evidence showing the result of the search of the appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schepps v. State, 40895
...He relies upon Chorn v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 521, 298 S.W. 290; Henderson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 1 S.W.2d 300; Skiles v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 2 S.W.2d 436; Humphreys v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 304, 31 S.W.2d 631; Taylor v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 268, 49 S.W.2d 459; Brown v. State, 166 T......
-
State v. McMilliam
...644, 99 So. 503; Johnson v. State, 155 Tenn. 628, 299 S.W. 800; Henderson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 1 S.W.2d 300; Skiles v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 2 S.W.2d 436; State v. Littleton, 108 W.Va. 494, 151 S.E. 713; State v. Joseph, 100 W.Va. 213 130 S.E. 451; State v. Slat, 98 W.Va. 448, 127......
-
Gant v. State
...to validity of his arrest should have been sustained. See Vines v. State, 397 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1966) and Skiles v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 2 S.W.2d 436 (1928), two of several authorities cited by the Court in Having found that the trial court erred in that respect means only that we m......
-
Cannady v. State, 60773
...v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 322, 313 S.W.2d 297 (1958); Blackburn v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 384, 168 S.W.2d 662 (1943); Skiles v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 2 S.W.2d 436 (1928); and see Fletcher v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 74, 344 S.W.2d 683 (1961). However, if defense counsel desires a review of the se......