Barnes v. State, No. 36705

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtMORRISON; MORRISON
Citation390 S.W.2d 266,85 S.Ct. 942
Docket NumberNo. 36705
Decision Date25 March 1964
PartiesWanda Jean BARNES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Page 266

390 S.W.2d 266
Wanda Jean BARNES, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 36705.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 25, 1964.
Rehearing Denied May 13, 1964.
On Motion to Vacate Judgment June 27, 1964.
Judgment Reversed March 8, 1965.
See 85 S.Ct. 942.
On Remand from United States Supreme Court May 19, 1965.

Clyde W. Woody, Houston, for appellant.

Doug Crouch, Dist. Atty., Albert F. Fick, Jr., and R. J. Adcock, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The offense is possession of marihuana; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The state's evidence shows that on the night in question Ranger Sgt. Jim Paulk and Deputy Sheriffs E. N. Buie and Jim Smith went to appellant's residence in Everman, Tarrant County, with a warrant of arrest for the appellant's husband, Billy Joe Barnes. The arrest warrant had been issued by Justice of the Peace F. R. Land, of Lubbock County, upon complaint made by Ranger Paulk before an assistant district attorney (of Lubbock County), charging Billy Joe Barnes and one Johnny Leach with felony theft. The officers, at such time, also carried with them a search warrant purportedly issued by Justice of the Peace J. W. Boorman, Precinct No. One, Place No. Two, of Tarrant County, authorizing a search of the residence of Billy Joe Barnes for stolen property.

When the officers arrived, Ranger Paulk and Deputy Buie went to the front door and after they had knocked for a considerable length of time someone answered from inside: 'Who is there?' Buie replied that he was from the sheriff's office and had a warrant of arrest. When no one opened the door and quite a bit of commotion was heard on the inside, Officer Buie proceeded to break and enter the house through a window and admit Sgt. Paulk through the door. As Officer Buie was going down the

Page 268

hall he observed the appellant coming out of a half bath in a bedroom. He immediately went into the bathroom, which had only one entrance and exit, and saw a substance which he recognized as marihuana, in the commode, which was in the process of flushing. At such time he grabbed some of the substance from the commode. The substance, upon being examined in the Fort Worth police department crime laboratory, was found to be marihuana. After finding the marihuana in the commode, Billy Joe Barnes was arrested by Sgt. Paulk in a back bedroom, the appellant was placed under arrest, and one Wanda Jean Finchum, who was in another bedroom, was also arrested.

Following the arrests, the officers then proceeded, with the assistance of Deputy Smith, to go outside and search the premises. In the search they found in the back yard under a rock a bottle containing a substance which, upon being examined, was shown to be marihuana.

Appellant did not testify or call any witnesses who gave testimony on the issue of her guilt.

Appellant insists that the marihuana was illegally obtained by the officers under both a void search warrant and warrant of arrest and that for such reason her conviction cannot be sustained.

This contention was first urged by appellant in her motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the grand jury had utilized illegal evidence in returning the indictment against her.

While the court did hear evidence in support of appellant's motion, it is the rule that the character of testimony or quantum of proof before the grand jury will not be inquired into on a motion to quash the indictment. Terry v. State, 15 Tex.App. 66; Edwards v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 380, 166 S.W. 517. An indictment may not be quashed on the ground that the grand jury received improper evidence. 30 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 50, pages 625-628; Dockery v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 487, 34 S.W. 281; Buchanan v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 127, 52 S.W. 769; Bell v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 342, 243 S.W. 1095.

In her brief, appellant refers to her motion to quash the indictment as also a motion to suppress evidence, and urges that we hold such motion to have been well taken.

Recently, in Padgett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 397, we said:

'While used extensively in the federal courts of this country, a motion to suppress evidence in advance of proffer does not obtain in this state. Johnson v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 13 S.W.2d 114; Bailey v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 315, 248 S.W.2d 144; Spencer v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 496, 250 S.W.2d 199; Dominguez v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 124, 275 S.W.2d 677; Gonzales v. State [172 Tex.Cr.R. 556], 361 S.W.2d 393. The motion does not qualify as an informal bill...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • People v. Sesslin, Cr. 11519
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 10, 1968
    ...of them, the said Billy Joe Barnes and Johnny Leach against the peace and dignity of the State.' (Barnes v. State (1964) Tex.Cr.App., 390 S.W.2d 266, The complaint in Barnes, like the complaints here and in Giordenello, is defective in that it merely sets forth the terms of the statute viol......
  • People v. Cressey, Cr. 13933
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 8, 1970
    ...supra, 393 U.S. 410, 420--422, 89 S.Ct. 584; Barnes v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 253, 85 S.Ct. 942 (Barnes v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1965) 390 S.W.2d 266, 269--270); Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. 108, 109, 84 S.Ct. 1509; Nathanson v. United States (1933) 290 U.S. 41, 44--45, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.......
  • Eisenhauer v. State, No. 149-85
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • March 23, 1988
    ...S.Ct. 1932, 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964), on remand, 382 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); see also arrest warrant litigation in Barnes v. State, 390 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), reversed and remanded, Barnes v. Texas, 380 U.S. 253, 85 S.Ct. 942, 13 L.Ed.2d 818 (1965), on remand, 390 S.W.2d 270 13 P......
  • Gordon v. State, No. 560-89
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 12, 1990
    ...to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Appellant complained, citing Giordenello v. United States, Aguilar v. Texas, and Barnes v. State, 390 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App.1965), that the complaint did not meet due process requirements or his Fourth Amendment rights because the complaint was not based u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • People v. Sesslin, Cr. 11519
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 10, 1968
    ...of them, the said Billy Joe Barnes and Johnny Leach against the peace and dignity of the State.' (Barnes v. State (1964) Tex.Cr.App., 390 S.W.2d 266, The complaint in Barnes, like the complaints here and in Giordenello, is defective in that it merely sets forth the terms of the statute viol......
  • People v. Cressey, Cr. 13933
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 8, 1970
    ...supra, 393 U.S. 410, 420--422, 89 S.Ct. 584; Barnes v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 253, 85 S.Ct. 942 (Barnes v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1965) 390 S.W.2d 266, 269--270); Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. 108, 109, 84 S.Ct. 1509; Nathanson v. United States (1933) 290 U.S. 41, 44--45, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.......
  • Eisenhauer v. State, No. 149-85
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • March 23, 1988
    ...S.Ct. 1932, 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964), on remand, 382 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); see also arrest warrant litigation in Barnes v. State, 390 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), reversed and remanded, Barnes v. Texas, 380 U.S. 253, 85 S.Ct. 942, 13 L.Ed.2d 818 (1965), on remand, 390 S.W.2d 270 13 P......
  • Gordon v. State, No. 560-89
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 12, 1990
    ...to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Appellant complained, citing Giordenello v. United States, Aguilar v. Texas, and Barnes v. State, 390 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App.1965), that the complaint did not meet due process requirements or his Fourth Amendment rights because the complaint was not based u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT