Bridges v. State, No. 29869

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Citation: 316 S.W.2d 757,166 Tex.Crim. 556
• Decision Date: 11 June 1958
• Parties: Bobble George BRIDGES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 29869

Page 757

316 S.W.2d 757 166 Tex.Crim. 556 Bobble George BRIDGES, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 29869. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. June 11, 1958.

[166 Tex.Crim. 557]

Page 759

C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Frank Briscoe and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of heroin with a prior conviction for an offense of like character alleged for the purpose of enhancement; the punishment, 99 years.

The State's testimony shows that Officers E. J. Stringfellow and H. M. Gray, of the Narcotics Division of the Houston Police Department, received information that the appellant would deliver heroin in a chewing gum wrapper to a male person known as Henderson Hobbs in the 2100 Block of McGowen Street. Upon proceeding to the address, they observed the appellant park his automobile in front of an apartment house at 2102 McGowen, blow the horn twice, and Hobbs come out of the house. As the Officers got out of their automobile and approached the appellant's automobile, appellant looked toward them and attempted to put a chewing gum wrapper in his mouth whereupon Officer Stringfellow knocked it from his hand to the floor board and picked it up. A capsule was seen to fall from the wrapper and the wrapper itself was found to contain three more capsules. The capsules, upon being examined by Chemist R. E. Tullis, were found to contain heroin. Proof was made of appellant's prior [166 Tex.Crim. 558] conviction as alleged. Appellant's written confession made to the Officers after his arrest was introduced in evidence by the State in which he admitted the finding of the capsules of heroin on the floor board of his automobile by the Officers.

As a witness in his own behalf, appellant admitted his prior conviction of the offense of possession of marijuana as alleged in the indictment but denied that he possessed the chewing gum wrapper and capsules of heroin recovered from his automobile by the Officers. Appellant testified that on the day in question he had loaned his automobile to a friend who returned it with gum wrappers on the floor board and denied that he had attempted to put the gum wrapper to his mouth and that Officer Stringfellow knocked it to the floor board.

Joe Nathan Wilson, upon being called as a witness by the appellant, testified that on the day in question he borrowed appellant's automobile and when it was returned it had gum wrappers in it.

The jury chose to accept the State's testimony and reject that of the appellant and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict.

Appellant questions the sufficiency of the indictment to charge an offense because it does not negative the various exceptions found in art. 725b, Vernon's

Page 760

Annotated Penal Code. While appellant filed no exceptions or motion to quash the indictment in the Trial Court we have examined the same and find the allegations therein sufficient to charge an offense. Under the provisions of Sec. 21 of art. 725b, supra, it is not necessary that an indictment negative any of the exceptions contained in the Act. Such provision of the statute was given effect in Manson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 316 S.W.2d 414. See, also, Browning v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 273, 276 S.W.2d 522.

...