Windham v. State
| Citation | 335 S.W.2d 221,169 Tex.Crim. 448 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 31723,31723 |
| Parties | Tommy Samuel WINDHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Scarborough, Black & Tarpley, by James K. Graham, Abilene, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the possession of whiskey, gin, vodka and malt liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $500.
Mrs. Della West testified that appellant and one Jerry Ray James came to see her about renting one of her apartments, that James did the talking but appellant furnished the money for the first month's rent, that as she prepared to make out the receipt to both of them James took the receipt and inserted his own name, that thereafter the two men unloaded some clothes, that she 'saw them coming and going' and they lived in the apartment, and that after appellant was released from jail he came back and got 'a lot of things.'
On May 2, two officers, armed with a search warrant, searched the apartment and found 314 half pints of whiskey and other containers of gin, vodka and malt liquor.
At the time of the raid, an automobile, which the officers testified they had seen appellant drive for some time, was parked in the apartment garage, and in it the officers found a quantity of beer. Appellant and James were in jail at the time.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but proved that the utility deposit at that address had been made in the name of James.
Two contentions are advanced by brief and in argument. It is first asserted that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that appellant lived in the apartment and exercised any control over the intoxicants. The fact that he was seen to carry in clothes on the day the apartment was rented and was seen to come and go during the ensuing week, together with the fact that he returned for his clothes after his release from jail, plus Mrs. West's testimony that he lived there, we have concluded was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to conclude that he occupied the apartment jointly with James and exercised joint control over its contents.
Appellant objected to the introduction of three pieces of paper found in the apartment by the officers who made the search. The first was a note which read, We have concluded that such note. though obviously not in appellant's handwriting, was admissible as a circumstance to show that appellant shared the apartment with Jerry James. The second contained several first names and the word 'sunrise,' and opposite the names were sums of money. This evidence could not have been injurious to appellant without some showing as to who the people w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phenix v. State, 44847
...that its admission was harmless error and was not so prejudicial as to require reversal. See and compare Windham v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 335 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.Cr.App.1960). Where the evidence of guilt is clearly established, even constitutional error may be harmless. Harrington v. Califo......
-
Arnott v. State
...violating the hearsay rule. McCormick & Ray, supra, § 796. See Haynes v. State, 475 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Windham v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 335 S.W.2d 221 (1960). Therefore, assuming that the notebooks were so offered in the present case, the question which must be answered is 'W......
-
Angle v. State
...on cross-examination, without objection, to the same facts now complained of regarding the denial of bail. In Windham v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 335 S.W.2d 221 (1960), it was held that permitting similar testimony to be introduced after objection waives the objection. Next, appellant cont......
-
Henderson v. State
...was admissible. Brown v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 263 S.W.2d 261; Aaron v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 635, 296 S.W.2d 264 and Windham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 335 S.W.2d 221. We overrule appellant's remaining contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because his oral c......