
    DAVIS v. STATE.
    (No. 11713.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 30, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>l 169(3)— Defendant, admitting whisky was found, was not entitled to complain that testimony of officers relative thereto, was based on illegal search.-
    In prosecution for transporting liquor, defendant, who took the stand in his own behalf and admitted that officers had found jug of whisky in his car, was not entitled to • reversal on ground that testimony of officers as to his possession of the whisky was obtained as the result of a search without a warrant or with an insufficient warrant.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;-l 171(1) — Defendant’s admission that he carried whisky from hiding place to car conclusively established transportation, rendering alleged improper argument harmless. ,
    In prosecution for transporting liquor, in which defendant himself admitted that he had carried jug of whisky from hiding place to his car, transportation was conclusively shown and argument of district attorney, if erroneous, was not prejudicial.
    Appeal from District Court, Brown County ; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
    Lilton Davis was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. L. Kirkpatrick and E. M. Davis, both of Brownwood, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

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

There are six bills of exception, five of which complain, in some form, of the action of the court in permitting in evidence the testimony of the officers as to what they found in the ear occupied by appellant at the time of his arrest and the finding in said car of a j.ug of whisky. In view of the fact that appellant took the stand in his own behalf and admitted that said officers found said jug of whisky in said car, these complaints are of no avail to him. We seem to have settled the question against him, and hold that evidence obtained as a result of a search without a warrant, or with an insufficient warrant, even if erroneously admitted, will not operate to reverse the case where the accused takes the stand and admits the truth of the things thus objected to. Sifuentes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 5 S.W.(2d) 144, and authorities cited.

The sixth bill of exceptions complains of some argument made by the district attorney, but in view of the fact that in the instant case there seems no dispute of the fact of transportation, we are unable to see how any injury could be asserted. Appellant’s contention was that he found the jug of whis-ky and took it from its hiding place and carried it and put it in his car with a view of further transporting it to his home, where he expected to-use it, as he said, “to drink between meals.” This unquestionably would be transportation. The fact that he had carried it only a short distance before being found in possession of same would not affect his guilt, if the jury believed such carrying was a part of an intended further removal. The testimony of the officers was to the effect that appellant was driving up through the woods when they saw him and arrested him. Such being the case, we do not think the argument complained of could be of any possible injury.

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