Phœnix v. State

17 S.W.2d 829
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 15, 1929
DocketNo. 12569
StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.W.2d 829 (Phœnix 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
Phœnix v. State, 17 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1929).

Opinion

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The owner of a stolen overcoat observed appellant in possession of and wear--ing said coat. He immediately "informed a magistrate of this fact. The latter caused the arrest of appellant, who was at once brought before said magistrate. Search of his person revealed the presence of several bottles of whisky and a pistol. The arrest without warrant was legal. Article 325, Code Cr. Proc. 1925; Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 202 S. W. 513; Porez v. State, 29 Tex. App. 618, 16 S. W. 750; Morris v. Kasling, 79 Tex. 141, 15 S. W. 226, 11 L. R. A. 398. Under all the authorities one legally arrested may be legally searched. Washington v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 214, 296 S. W. 512; Sandoval v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 293 S. W. 168; Paulk v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 472, 293 S. W. 169; Hawley v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 243, 296 S. W. 556; Coats v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 1 S.W. (2d) 288; Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 145, 51 A. L. R. 409. The finding of the pistol was part of the res gestee of the search and of the offense and was provable. Appellant was on a public street when first observed on the occasion in question. He was going along the street. When arrested a short time thereafter he had gone further along said street. We think the conviction for trang--portation of intoxicating liquor not without support. Objection to testimony of the search and its results was not well taken under the authorities above cited.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

Agnello v. United States
269 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Washington v. State
296 S.W. 512 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Hawley v. State
296 S.W. 556 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Paulk v. State
293 S.W. 169 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Burkhardt v. State
202 S.W. 513 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Coats v. State
1 S.W.2d 288 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Sandoval v. State
293 S.W. 168 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Morris v. Kasling
11 L.R.A. 368 (Texas Supreme Court, 1890)
Porez v. State
16 S.W. 750 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 S.W.2d 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phnix-v-state-texcrimapp-1929.