Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 03 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 24147.,24147. |
| Citation | 214 S.W.2d 471 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Anderson County Court; Pace McDonald, Judge.
Charley Lee Smith was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
B. R. Reeves, of Palestine, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The appellant was convicted for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. The jury assessed a penalty of $100 fine and thirty days in jail.
The record is before us with three bills of exception. The proof showed that an agent of the Liquor Control Board went to the office of a garage, on the highway entering the city, at a late hour in the night and purchased from appellant a pint of whisky. The agent testified that when he told appellant that he wanted a pint of liquor he left the office and was gone but a short time, came back with it and delivered the whisky and received the money.
Testifying in his own behalf, appellant laid the scene of the sale in a different place and under different circumstances. He said that the agent got his sympathy and, acting for the witness, he took the money from him and went to a bootlegger nearby, purchased the whisky as the agent of the witness and delivered it to him. This constitutes his defense to the charge against him. In submitting the issue to the jury the court, taking the view that no defense was raised, declined to give a charge on the defensive issue thus raised. Bill of Exception No. 4 shows that a special requested charge on the subject was refused by the court. In doing so the court committed error. The law involved, and the decisions of this Court thereon, are fully discussed in Hollis v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 165, 161 S.W.2d 794. It would not add to the jurisprudence of the State to discuss the question further. The failure of the court to submit an affirmative charge on appellant's defense will require a reversal of the case.
Another question raised by bill of exception complains of the action of the county attorney in submitting to a juror the bottle of whisky, after the seal was broken in the presence of the jury, and permitting the juror to smell it. It will be recalled that in testifying appellant admitted that the bottle which he delivered to the witness contained whisky; that it was the brand which the witness described, but that it was a different bottle from that exhibited in court.
In Brown v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 242 S.W. 218, a glass of the liquid from the liquor seized was exhibited to and tasted by one of the jurors. In their deliberations this juror told the others that the liquid was whisky. This explanation was made to them in the jury room, while they were deliberating on the case, and not from the witness box. The court held that to be error, citing Parker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 75 S.W. 30; Dane v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 84, 87, 35 S.W. 661. It was new evidence received in retirement.
Again, in Skinner v. State, 101 Tex.Cr. R. 68, 274 S.W. 133, the action of the prosecuting attorney during his argument in tendering the liquor for their examination, and permitting them to smell it and taste it, was considered. The court said that if there was any dispute in the record as to the fact that it was whisky, it would raise a serious question. On rehearing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopez v. State
...juror or jury did not rely on their own judgment in determining the issue, if he is to prevail in his protest. See: Smith v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.C. 399, 214 S.W.2d 471 (1948). To that extent, an inquiry into the mental process of the jury as affected by such new evidence, if any, is not only ......
-
Tarabochia v. Johnson Line, Inc.
...by the jury would not require the granting of a new trial. Smith v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 232 S.W. 497, and also Smith v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 399, 214 S.W.2d 471. The rules, gleaned from a compilation of the cases on this subject, are summarized in an annotation in 95 A.L.R.2d 355 (1964)......
-
Kaldis v. State, s. 01-95-00174-C
...by this experiment could be appropriated by them to any controverted question, the conviction would be jeopardized. Smith v. State, 214 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex.Crim.App.1948); accord Smith v. State, 153 Tex.Crim. 193, 218 S.W.2d 851, 852 (1949) ("The question ... is not a new one. It has been ......
-
Ingram v. State
...by the jury would not require the granting of a new trial. Smith v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 232 S.W. 497, and also Smith v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 399, 214 S.W.2d 471. Appellant's remaining complaint is to a portion of the county attorney's closing argument to the jury. Appellant's only objec......