Stach v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8085.) |
| Citation | 260 S.W. 569 |
| Parties | STACH v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Milan County; John Watson, Judge.
Frank Stach was convicted of violation of the prohibition law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Chambers, Wallace & Gillis, of Cameron, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The offense is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
A witness, who was a justice of the peace, looking through the window of the appellant's dwelling, observed him pouring whisky and water into soda water bottles. There were seven or eight bottles on hand which were taken possession of by the witness and a constable who was present. In the appellant's possession were a number of corks and a funnel, a jug containing about half a gallon of whisky, and another jug containing some wine; also a tube or whisky tester. The justice of the peace, over the objection of the appellant, was permitted to testify that about four months before the date of the transaction upon which the prosecution is founded, the witness said to appellant: that to this the appellant made no reply. The witness also testified that his presence at appellant's window was discovered by him and the witness said to him: "Frank, I have warned you about this," and the appellant made no reply. This testimony was calculated to impress the jury with the view that the appellant, by his silence on both occasions, had admitted his guilt, either of the particular offense for which he was on trial or of kindred offenses. While at the moment appellant had not been formally arrested, he was in the presence of the justice of the peace and a constable, and was immediately put in custody. Under these circumstances, his silence, when accused of a crime, would not be admissible against him. Calloway v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 262, 116 S. W. 575; Dekle v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 257 S. W. 882. Also article 810, C. C. P. Neither the remark, "Frank, I have warned you about this," nor the previous remark, charged the appellant with the present offense in a manner sufficiently specific to require an answer, and therefore was not admissible without reference to the question of arrest or custody. The circumstances under which the silence of one accused of an offense is provable is discussed in Wharton's Crim. Ev. vol. 2, § 680, in which it is said in substance that the accusation must be direct and of a nature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heitman v. State
...the same conclusion under Art. I, Sec. 9 of our State Constitution" and cited four prior Texas cases as authority. Stach v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 260 S.W. 569 (1924); Eversole v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 567, 294 S.W. 210 (1927); Hunter v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 12 S.W.2d 566 (1928); and ......
-
Gillett v. State
...searching for, and seizing, alcoholic beverages. See, e. g., Bolt v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 267, 16 S.W.2d 235 (1929); Stach v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 260 S.W. 569 (1924); Cadan v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 645, 255 S.W. 428 (1923); West v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 288, 247 S.W. 534 It was such a case......
-
Miles v. State
...of the parties arrested had been placed in the custody of this juror where he remained until he made bond."); Stach v. State, 97 Tex.Crim. 280, 280, 260 S.W. 569, 570 (1924) (justice of the peace and constable looked into defendant's window, saw him pouring whiskey and water into soda bottl......
-
Gamboa v. State
...applied to silence in the presence of an arresting officer or magistrate where the accused was not formally arrested. Stach v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 260 S.W. 569 (1924). We need not, however, rest our decision on whether the appellant was under arrest or not. The rule in question has no ......