Blaylock v. State, 33793
| Decision Date | 22 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 33793,33793 |
| Citation | 171 Tex.Crim. 665,352 S.W.2d 727 |
| Parties | Linda BLAYLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. E. Martin (On Appeal Only), Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Roberton, Jr., J. R. Musslewhite, Assts. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is unlawful possession of morphine, a narcotic drug; the punishment, 5 years.
The evidence shows: Police officers went to the premises described in a search warrant, arriving about 7:30 P.M. William Scelles was seated on one bed and Frederick Engel on another. Engel had a needle attached to an eye dropper and bulb inserted into his arm, giving himself an injection of some sort of fluid. Appellant was standing beside Engel.
The officers observed this through a window and made a forced entry as appellant started toward the kitchen. All three ran for the rear of the house when they saw the officers.
Appellant followed Engel into the bathroom and closed the door. The officers forced entry through said door and saw Engel flushing the commode in which there remained a piece of bloody rag.
Underneath some female clothing in a suit case the officers found an eye dropper and bulb with a needle attached thereto, which were introduced in evidence and identified as being adaptable for use of subcutaneous injection of narcotic drugs in a human being.
A clear bottle containing a brownish liquid, found in a cabinet in the kitchen, was also introduced.
A chemical analysis of a liquid in the syringe bulb offered in evidence, and the brownish liquid found in the kitchen, revealed that such liquids were solutions of morphine, a narcotic drug.
[171 TEXCRIM 667] There was testimony that the appellant had on several occasions been seen entering and leaving the apartment, sometimes spending the night.
She testified that the overnight bag belonged to her, but denied that the eye dropper, syringe bulb and needle found in it were hers, and denied that she lived in the apartment.
Appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that there was no proof that the liquid in the eye dropper and bulb was anything other than paregoric, and that the quantity of morphine was insufficient to show a violation of the law penalizing possession of narcotics.
The contention that the morphine was or could have been evaporated or boiled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jefferson
...S.W 733, 736; Mickens v. People, 148 Colo. 237, 365 P.2d 679, 681; Peachie v. State, 203 Md. 239, 100 A.2d 1, 2; Blaylock v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 665, 352 S.W.2d 727, 728; Anno.: 91 A.L.R.2d 810, 829, Sec. 7. The state was not required to prove that the quantity of amphetamine in the soluti......
-
Yantis v. State
...to show the appellants had such 'control and custody' of the marihuana seized to constitute possession. Cf. Blaylock v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 665, 352 S.W.2d 727 (1961); King v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 34, 335 S.W.2d 378 (1959) and Tomlin v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 108, 338 S.W.2d 735 (1960). Appe......
-
Carter v. State
... ... 14, 127 S.W.2d 905. Where the evidence shows that the accused knowingly possessed a narcotic drug, Pelham and Greer are inapplicable. See Blaylock v. State, 171 ... Tex.Cr.R. 665, 352 S.W.2d 727; Robinson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 293 S.W.2d 781 ... 'The reasoning of Greer and Pelham is ... ...
-
Reyes v. State
...Where the evidence shows that the accused knowingly possessed a narcotic drug, Pelham and Greer are inapplicable. See Blaylock v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 665, 352 S.W.2d 727; Robinson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 293 S.W.2d The reasoning of Greer and Pelham is likewise inapplicable to prosecut......