
    BROWN v. STATE.
    (No. 9594.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 25, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1926.)
    f. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>236 (20) — Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction.
    Evidence held, sufficient to sustain conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor.
    On Motion for Rehearing
    2. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>224 — Burden is on accused, who is shown to have transported liquor, to prove transportation lawful.
    Where state’s evidence is sufficient to show accused transported liquor, burden is on accused to show transportation was.for purpose permitted by law.
    3» Intoxicating liquors <@=»224 — Burden of proving transportation lawful is discharged by raising reasonable doubt.
    Where transportation of liquor is proved, accused’s burden of proving that transportation was for lawful purpose is discharged by evidence sufficient to raise in minds of jury a reasonable doubt on issue.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, McCulloch County.
    Jesse Brown was convicted of transporting liquor, and. he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. E. Shropshire, of Brady, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor, and the punishment is two years in the -penitentiary.

Appellant’s only complaint in his brief is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. We take the following brief statement of the facts from appellant’s brief:

“The evidence of transportation shows the following facts only: That a car, or automobile, was seen by the officer approaching a crossing on Brady creek at a distance of about 125 yards. It came to and across the creek at a very slow rate of speed, and, while it was in the bed of the creek, defendant stepped out of the car, with a quart fruit jar about two-thirds full of whisky in his hands. That defendant let the car pass on up the south bank of the creek, and made about 10 to 20 steps with his whisky and hid it in some weeds on the west side of the road, on the south bank of the creek. He then went and got a friend, and came back to the place, and he and his friend took a drink from the jar, at which time he was arrested by the officer.”

Under this statement of facts, appellant very earnestly contends that he is not guilty of transporting intoxicating liquor. We cannot agree with his contention in this respect. On the contrary, we think that the testimony is amply sufficient, from both the standpoint of the positive testimony and from circumstantial evidence, to show his guilt beyond the possibility of a doubt. We think his own statement of the facts shows beyond controversy that he carried the liquor from the car to its hiding place, a distance of from 10 to 20 steps. We have been cited to no authority, and indeed we know of none, that holds that this, within itself, would not constitute transportation. Taken together, however, with the fact that the car was seen to come down the road 125 yards, and that the appellant was in the ear when it reached the creek, where the witness was, makes it certain to our minds that the jury was warranted in saying that, at least circumstantially, the facts were cap^ able of no other solution than that this appellant was transporting this whisky along the road in that car. He offers no testimony and no explanation as to his theory of the case, but relies alone on the insufficiency of the state’s testimony.

We do not think that the jury would have been justified in reaching any other conclusion than the one that is made manifest by their verdict. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant very earnestly contends in his motion for rehearing that we were in error in holding the facts sufficient to overcome the presumption .of innocence in this ease. We simply held that under the facts stated in the original opinion, which facts were taken from appellant’s brief, and which were justified by the record in the case, they were amply sufficient to show that appellant transported the liquor in question. This placed the burden on him to show, if he could, that he was transporting it for one of the purposes permitted by law. Robert v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 133, 234 S. W. 89; Mayfield v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 532, 244 S. W. 819; McNeil v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 259, 247 S. W. 536; Mayo v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 245 S. W. 241. This burden would have been discharged, had the evidence been sufficient to raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt on this issue. The testimony, however, contains no suggestion that the liquor in question was transported for a purpose permitted by law; hence we cannot agree with appellant’s very earnest contention that we were in error in holding that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing will therefore be overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court. 
      <©=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     