Sutton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Sutton v. State

300 S.W. 639, 108 Tex. Crim. 351, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 718

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 14, 1927

DocketNo. 11209.

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 300 S.W. 639 (Sutton 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

Sutton v. State, 300 S.W. 639, 108 Tex. Crim. 351, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 718 (Tex. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, punishment being one year and six months in the penitentiary.

The home of appellant was searched by officers and a quantity of whiskey found. The validity of the search warrant was attacked by motion to quash the affidavit upon which the warrant was based, on the ground that the affidavit did not show “probable cause,” and the receipt of the evidence showing the result of the search was objected to for like reason. The affidavit was predicated upon “information and belief” only without stating any facts or showing what the information was upon which the belief was founded. The affidavit was insufficient to authorize the warrant and the evidence discovered as a result of the search was improperly admitted. Chapin v. State, 296 S. W. 1095; Stokes v. State, 296 S. W. 1108; Peppers v. State, 296 S. W. 1109; Green v. State, 296 S. W. 1109; Hodge v. State, 298 S, W. 573; Montgomery v. State, 298 S. W. 596.

*352 This is a companion case to Allman v. State, reported in 296 S. W. 580. The improper argument of the District Attorney alluded to in paragraph three of that opinion occurred in the present case also, and likewise the hearsay evidence condemned in paragraphs one and two of that opinion was admitted over objection upon the present trial. If this had been a case permitting the officers the right to search upon “probable cause”— like searching an automobile — in the absence of a search warrant the hearsay evidence complained of might properly have been heard by the court in the absence of the jury to enable the court to determine if “probable cause” existed for making the search and therefore authorize the result of the search to be detailed before the jury. But the present case is not of that character and the hearsay evidence should not have gone to the jury.

For the reasons stated 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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, punishment being one year and six months in the penitentiary.

The home of appellant was searched by officers and a quantity of whiskey found. The validity of the search warrant was attacked by motion to quash the affidavit upon which the warrant was based, on the ground that the affidavit did not show “probable cause,” and the receipt of the evidence showing the result of the search was objected to for like reason. The affidavit was predicated upon “information and belief” only without stating any facts or showing what the information was upon which the belief was founded. The affidavit was insufficient to authorize the warrant and the evidence discovered as a result of the search was improperly admitted. Chapin v. State, 296 S. W. 1095; Stokes v. State, 296 S. W. 1108; Peppers v. State, 296 S. W. 1109; Green v. State, 296 S. W. 1109; Hodge v. State, 298 S, W. 573; Montgomery v. State, 298 S. W. 596.

*352 This is a companion case to Allman v. State, reported in 296 S. W. 580. The improper argument of the District Attorney alluded to in paragraph three of that opinion occurred in the present case also, and likewise the hearsay evidence condemned in paragraphs one and two of that opinion was admitted over objection upon the present trial. If this had been a case permitting the officers the right to search upon “probable cause”— like searching an automobile — in the absence of a search warrant the hearsay evidence complained of might properly have been heard by the court in the absence of the jury to enable the court to determine if “probable cause” existed for making the search and therefore authorize the result of the search to be detailed before the jury. But the present case is not of that character and the hearsay evidence should not have gone to the jury.

For the reasons stated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 S.W. 639, 108 Tex. Crim. 351, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-state-texcrimapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack