Miller v. State

105 S.W.2d 252, 132 Tex. Crim. 462, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 286
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 133 Tex. Crim. 53
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 12, 1937·No. No. 19001.·Published

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for possessing for the purpose of sale in dry area intoxicating liquor, punishment assessed being a fine of $125.00.

All incriminating testimony came from two officers who secured the evidence under a search warrant by virtue of which they acted. When each of them was profferred as a witness appellant’s attorney objected to the admission of their testimony on the ground that no law was in force authorizing a search warrant to issue. The objection was overruled. It should have been sustained and the evidence excluded. Greenway v. State, 101 S. W. (2d) 569; Slack v. State, 102 S. W. (2d) 414.

The present Legislature (45th R. S., House Bill No. 432) has re-enacted the law authorizing search warrants in certain instances where violation of the liquor laws are involved, but this law did not become effective until March 5, 1937.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Miller v. State, 105 S.W.2d 252, 132 Tex. Crim. 462, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 286 (Tex. 1937).

105 S.W.2d 252 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greenway v. State
101 S.W.2d 569 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Slack v. State
102 S.W.2d 414 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)