Wilkerson v. State
Decision Date | 06 December 1922 |
Docket Number | (No. 7252.) |
Citation | 245 S.W. 430 |
Parties | WILKERSON v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; W. L. Harding, Judge.
Ester Wilkerson was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Ellis county of the offense of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at 1½ years in the penitentiary.
The state introduced Gus Mitchell and Mary Mitchell, who testified that appellant brought a still to their house and set it up and made whisky. On one occasion he made about five gallons and on another occasion he made two gallons. Each of said witnesses drank the liquor, and appellants seems to have given them a part of it. There is other testimony in the record which would seem to indicate sufficient connection of said witnesses with the commission of the crime to have justified the court in submitting to the jury the question of their being accomplices. The court did not charge on the law of accomplice testimony. Appellant asked a special charge submitting this issue to the jury, which was refused, and a bill of exceptions was taken. We would uphold appellant's contention but for the further fact, apparent from the record, that appellant himself testified, admitting fully that at the home of said Mitchells he made the liquor testified about by them. From appellant's testimony we quote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saucier v. State, 24647
...not be justified in reversing the case on that ground alone. See Bogan v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 468, 22 S.W.2d 944; Wilkerson v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 245 S.W. 430.' In the Bogan case, mentioned above, it is said [114 Tex.Cr.R. 468, 22 S.W.2d 945]: 'A charge to the jury that the first witn......
-
Bogan v. State
...case, the error * * * requires a reversal." See, also, Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 311, 230 S. W. 1001, 1003; Wilkerson v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 245 S. W. 430; Bailey v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 119, 150 S. W. 915; Bailey v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 155 S. W. 536. Carl White was wi......
-
Price v. State
...v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 194 S.W. 944, L.R.A.1917E, 930; McKnight v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 126 S.W.2d 671; Wilkerson v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 245 S.W. 430. The other nine bills of exception complain of certain remarks made by the County and District Attorneys in their arguments to ......
-
McDonald v. State, 20672.
...call attention to Bogan v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 468, 22 S.W 2d 944; Haines v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 524, 116 S.W.2d 399; Wilkerson v. State 93 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 245 S.W. 430; Fisher v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 568, 197 S.W. 189. Under the facts of the present case we are of opinion that no reversible......