Buck v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Buck v. State

243 S.W.2d 700, 156 Tex. Crim. 456, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1640

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 21, 1951

DocketNo. 25491

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 S.W.2d 700 (Buck v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buck v. State, 243 S.W.2d 700, 156 Tex. Crim. 456, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1640 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for possesing liquor for the purpose of sale and assessed a fine of $250.00 and 60 days in jail.

The state relied upon evidence obtained from certain prem[457]*457ises in the city of Coleman, which consisted of two pints of liquor together with what appears to be the mere drainage of two empty bottles, the exact amount of which is not given. ,

The sufficiency of the affidavit for search warrant and of the search warrant itself is questioned because of the uncertainty of the party alleged to be in charge of and having control of the premises, the language complained of being reflected in the affidavit by the following quotation: “* * * and being the premises occupied by, in charge of and under the control of James Buck, and/or party or parties whose name or names and whose description or descriptions are unknown to affiants.” The same language is found in the search warrant.

The question raised here is identical with that raised in Cause No. 25427, W. R. Wood v. State of Texas discussed in the opinion by this court dated October 31, 1951, (Page 419 of this volume). We there held that the language naming the person in charge and possession of the premises was uncertain because of the disjunctive language. The affidavit and search warrant in the instant case are, for the same reason, fatally defective.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for possesing liquor for the purpose of sale and assessed a fine of $250.00 and 60 days in jail.

The state relied upon evidence obtained from certain prem[457]*457ises in the city of Coleman, which consisted of two pints of liquor together with what appears to be the mere drainage of two empty bottles, the exact amount of which is not given. ,

The sufficiency of the affidavit for search warrant and of the search warrant itself is questioned because of the uncertainty of the party alleged to be in charge of and having control of the premises, the language complained of being reflected in the affidavit by the following quotation: “* * * and being the premises occupied by, in charge of and under the control of James Buck, and/or party or parties whose name or names and whose description or descriptions are unknown to affiants.” The same language is found in the search warrant.

The question raised here is identical with that raised in Cause No. 25427, W. R. Wood v. State of Texas discussed in the opinion by this court dated October 31, 1951, (Page 419 of this volume). We there held that the language naming the person in charge and possession of the premises was uncertain because of the disjunctive language. The affidavit and search warrant in the instant case are, for the same reason, fatally defective.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.W.2d 700, 156 Tex. Crim. 456, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buck-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack