Opinion
No. 19001.
Delivered May 12, 1937.
Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence.
In prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale in dry area, testimony of officers who secured evidence under a search warrant by virtue of which they acted, objected to on the ground that no law was in force authorizing search warrant to issue held inadmissible.
Appeal from the County Court of San Saba County. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. Gray, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale in dry area; penalty, fine of $125.
Reversed and remanded.
The opinion states the case.
J. Mitch Johnson, of San Saba, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
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.