Barnett v. State

Decision Date19 February 1969
Docket NumberNo. 41876,41876
Citation447 S.W.2d 684,90 S.Ct. 216
PartiesVernon O. BARNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Sheey, Jones, Cureton, Westbrook & Lovelace, by Joel W. Westbrook, Waco, for appellant.

Martin D. Eichelberger, Dist. Atty., George Allen, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waco, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of marihuana; the punishment, ten years.

The evidence reflects that one hundred grams of marihuana were found in an attache or brief case belonging to appellant. The first two complaints were that physical evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal arrest; and, that oral statements made by appellant were inadmissible and consent to search was not voluntary because he was under an illegal arrest and was not given warnings that he had a right to counsel and a right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.

The facts on the motion to suppress evidence and those on the merits will be considered on the controlling issue of whether or not there was an illegal arrest. Two officers of the Texas Liquor Control Board and J. T. Conley, a narcotic agent of the Texas Department of Public Safety, entered Walker's Auditorium in Waco and saw Leon Stewart, Albert Lee Acklin and the appellant, Barnett, drinking beer at the bar. The three men turned toward the officers and appeared to be very nervous. Barnett pushed his unfinished drink away and said, 'Let's go.' As they walked toward the door, Conley identified himself as an officer and asked appellant his name. He stated that it was 'Spots' Barnett, and that he was a musician from San Antonio. In response to a question he told Conley that he had been arrested once for barbiturates in San Antonio. Conley asked to see, and was shown, Barnett's identification. Conley had heard from Agent Maroney that a 'Spots' Barnett had been arrested for barbiturates in San Antonio, and Conley thought appellant was the same person. Barnett said he had come to Waco in Stewart's automobile which was just outside the door. Conley asked Barnett if he had anything in the car, and Barnett replied that he had a brief case that contained some contracts and personal effects. Conley asked if he could look through the brief case, and Barnett said: 'It's Leon's (Stewart's) car. If its okay with Leon, its okay with me.'

Agent Conley testified that Stewart gave permission to search and opened the door of the automobile. When the light came on, Conley asked Stewart if the brief case was his, and Barnett said, 'No, it is mine. My brief case.' Conley asked Barnett for, and was granted, permission to look through the brief case. Barnett opened it for the officers. Conley asked what was in the brown paper bag, and Barnett stated: 'Mr. Conley, you know what's in the bag. Marihuana.' Agent Conley testified that Barnett was not under arrest at the time he obtained permission to search, and after Barnett showed his identification he would not have detained him had he tried to leave. Conley testified that he had no idea of making a search after the identification was confirmed, but he would have detained Barnett had he not complied with the request to establish his identification; and that the arrest was not made until after Conley found the marihuana, a .357 magnum pistol and some pills.

Gilbreath v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 60, states the rule: 'Whether the accused is or is not under arrest is to be determined from the sufficiency of the facts to reasonably create the impression on his mind that he is under arrest.' Since appellant did not testify, only the testimony of Agent Conley and the surrounding facts and circumstances can be considered.

In Rolan v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 338 S.W.2d 457, the officer, as in the present case, had no warrant of arrest. While investigating the theft of stolen property, the officer located Rolan and interrogated him for some 45 minutes before placing him under arrest. At no time prior to such arrest did he advise Rolan that he intended to arrest him. On cross-examination the officer testified that if Rolan had tried to leave, he would have tried to stop him, because he wanted to talk to him. He also testified that if Rolan had refused to talk to him, he would have been free to go, but in that event he would have obtained a warrant. This court held that there was no arrest during the interrogation.

In the present case the trial court overruled the contentions in the motion to suppress and during the trial. Thus, it held that appellant was not under arrest when the consent to search was given and oral statements were made. The court did not charge on, and appellant did not choose to have the jury pass upon, the question of illegally obtained evidence. Article 38.23, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., provides:

'No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.

'In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained.'

No complaint is made because no such charge was given. Appellant was, at that time, apparently satisfied with the finding of the trial court. The trial court had before it sufficient evidence to hold that the evidence was not obtained as a result of an illegal arrest.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, expressly holds that the warning on the right to remain silent and the right to counsel is required only in custodial interrogation. See Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 601. Since appellant was not under arrest, it is not necessary to decide whether after an arrest a warning on the right...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corporation, 73-1907.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 18, 1974
    ...... under a federal statute which contains no built-in limitations period, the federal district court must apply the statute of limitations of the state where it sits which would be applicable to the most closely analogous state action. .         Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 5 Cir. ......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Tahoe Nugget, Inc., s. 77-2095
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 10, 1978
    ......1976), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 818, 98 S.Ct. 57, 54 L.Ed.2d 74 (1978); this disparity is emphasized in a right-to-work state, such as Nevada. See Terrell Machine Co. v. NLRB, 427 F.2d 1088, 1090 (4th Cir. 1970), Cert. denied, 398 U.S. 929, 90 S.Ct. 1821, 26 L.Ed.2d 91 ......
  • Driscoll v. International Union of Op. Eng., Local 139, 72-1423.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • September 11, 1973
    ...... had failed to demonstrate that the essentially private action of the union was so clothed with governmental authority as to be considered "state" or "federal" action that is governed by the Constitution. .         On appeal, Driscoll presents two general lines of analysis to support ......
  • William Dal Porto & Sons, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1987
    ......1271, 1283, 61 S.Ct. 447, (845, 852), 133 A.L.R. 1217].) Nevertheless, as we observed in Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 801, 813-814 [114 Cal.Rptr. 577, 523 P.2d 617].) 'It is fundamental in statutory construction that courts should ......
  • 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