Moseley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Moseley v. State

5 S.W.2d 145, 109 Tex. Crim. 454, 1928 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 301

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 11, 1928

DocketNo. 11521.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 S.W.2d 145 (Moseley 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

Moseley v. State, 5 S.W.2d 145, 109 Tex. Crim. 454, 1928 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 301 (Tex. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, punishment three years in the penitentiary.

Officers found a still and thirty-five or forty gallons of whiskey in a pasture in Callahan County. The only person found by them anywhere in the neighborhood of said still was a man named Whatley. This man testifies for the state, and is the only witness who in anywise connects appellant with the whiskey so found. He testifies that he had been at the still for a number of' days and that he and appellant had made the whiskey in *455 question on the day before the officers found it. As we understand this record it falls entirely and almost exactly in line with what we said in Cate v. State, 272 S. W. 210. If Whatley manufactured such liquor in conjunction with appellant he would be an accomplice. In fact, he was indicted, according to his testimony. The indictment against appellant charged him in one count with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and in another count with its possession. Whatley testified that he and appellant were jointly employed by the Rays, father and son, to make whiskey for them. The charge of the court was excepted to for its failure to charge on the law of accomplice testimony. We believe the court should so have charged the jury.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, punishment three years in the penitentiary.

Officers found a still and thirty-five or forty gallons of whiskey in a pasture in Callahan County. The only person found by them anywhere in the neighborhood of said still was a man named Whatley. This man testifies for the state, and is the only witness who in anywise connects appellant with the whiskey so found. He testifies that he had been at the still for a number of' days and that he and appellant had made the whiskey in *455 question on the day before the officers found it. As we understand this record it falls entirely and almost exactly in line with what we said in Cate v. State, 272 S. W. 210. If Whatley manufactured such liquor in conjunction with appellant he would be an accomplice. In fact, he was indicted, according to his testimony. The indictment against appellant charged him in one count with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and in another count with its possession. Whatley testified that he and appellant were jointly employed by the Rays, father and son, to make whiskey for them. The charge of the court was excepted to for its failure to charge on the law of accomplice testimony. We believe the court should so have charged the jury.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.W.2d 145, 109 Tex. Crim. 454, 1928 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moseley-v-state-texcrimapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack