Cassius v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant objected to the charge for omitting to instruct the jury that if appellant “had no interest in the whiskey and it was under the control and in the possession of Cortinas” appellant should be acquitted. It is still insisted that such an instruction should have been given under the holding in Richardson v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 17, 228 S. W. 1094, notwithstanding the court told the jury that appellant could not be convicted if they entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether he knew the whiskey was in the car. We think the facts in the present…