Christenson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Christenson v. State

137 S.W.2d 32, 138 Tex. Crim. 501, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 116

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 28, 1940

DocketNo. 20815.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 S.W.2d 32 (Christenson 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

Christenson v. State, 137 S.W.2d 32, 138 Tex. Crim. 501, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 116 (Tex. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, JUDGE.

The offense is possessing whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Over appellant’s objection, the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant were read to the jury. It was alleged in said instruments, among other things, that appellant sold and possessed for the purpose of sale alcoholic beverages in his private dwelling. There seems to have been no issue upon which the contents of the affidavit and search warrant were relevant. There was no proof in the record, other than the statement embraced in the affidavit and search warrant, that appellant had sold intoxicating liquor. The State relied for a conviction upon the testimony of the officers to the effect that they found one pint of whisky and sixteen cans of beer in appellant’s house, and that, upon following a well-beaten trail from appellant’s home to a point BOO yards away, they found four pints of whisky covered in leaves. Some of this whisky appears to have been of the same brand as the whisky found in appellant’s house. *502 Manifestly, the statements embraced in the affidavit and search warrant were hearsay and inadmissible. We are unable to say that their reception in evidence did not bring about appellant’s conviction. It follows that we are constrained to hold that the bill of exception reflects reversible error. See Uptmore v. State, 32 S. W. (2d) 474, and Dillon v. State, 2 S. W. (2d) 251.

The judgment is reversed and the 'cause remanded.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

CHRISTIAN, JUDGE.

The offense is possessing whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Over appellant’s objection, the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant were read to the jury. It was alleged in said instruments, among other things, that appellant sold and possessed for the purpose of sale alcoholic beverages in his private dwelling. There seems to have been no issue upon which the contents of the affidavit and search warrant were relevant. There was no proof in the record, other than the statement embraced in the affidavit and search warrant, that appellant had sold intoxicating liquor. The State relied for a conviction upon the testimony of the officers to the effect that they found one pint of whisky and sixteen cans of beer in appellant’s house, and that, upon following a well-beaten trail from appellant’s home to a point BOO yards away, they found four pints of whisky covered in leaves. Some of this whisky appears to have been of the same brand as the whisky found in appellant’s house. *502 Manifestly, the statements embraced in the affidavit and search warrant were hearsay and inadmissible. We are unable to say that their reception in evidence did not bring about appellant’s conviction. It follows that we are constrained to hold that the bill of exception reflects reversible error. See Uptmore v. State, 32 S. W. (2d) 474, and Dillon v. State, 2 S. W. (2d) 251.

The judgment is reversed and the 'cause remanded.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.W.2d 32, 138 Tex. Crim. 501, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christenson-v-state-texcrimapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack