Maddox v. State

240 S.W.2d 319, 156 Tex. Crim. 151, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1514
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 6, 1951
Docket25341
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 240 S.W.2d 319 (Maddox 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
Maddox v. State, 240 S.W.2d 319, 156 Tex. Crim. 151, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1514 (Tex. 1951).

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $150.00.

Appellant complains that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.

Officers armed with a search warrant searched the second floor apartment at 817 Beach Street in city of Plainview. There they found 5 pints of whiskey in a chest of drawers. The appellant was not present at the time of the search. The apartment in question was rented by appellant’s mother and occupied by her, appellant, appellant’s uncle, and two of appellant’s sisters. There was no showing that the whiskey was found in a room under the appellant’s control.

In Peters v. State, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 146, 151 S.W. 2d 592, we said:

“* * * where the evidence shows an opportunity or equal opportunity of another or others to possess the liquors charged to have been possessed by the accused, the State’s case, to be sufficient to convict upon circumstantial evidence must disprove such outstanding hypothesis. Such rule is complied with, however, when the facts show that such other person or persons exercised no control over, or possession of, the liquors, and had no opportunity to do so.”

We feel that such rule has not been complied with in this case.

*153 Because the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Related

Garrett v. State
366 S.W.2d 584 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Tucker v. State
339 S.W.2d 64 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Hill v. State
334 S.W.2d 303 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Lyons v. State
331 S.W.2d 329 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Hilton v. State
324 S.W.2d 5 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Shawhart v. State
289 S.W.2d 601 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Palma v. State
261 S.W.2d 589 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Huskey v. State
248 S.W.2d 131 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 S.W.2d 319, 156 Tex. Crim. 151, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.