Broussard v. State, 29791
| Decision Date | 07 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29791,29791 |
| Citation | 312 S.W.2d 664,166 Tex.Crim. 224 |
| Parties | Gertrude BROUSSARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Cutler, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Gus Zgourides, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is possession of policy paraphernalia; the punishment, 180 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.
Officer Driskell of the Houston police vice squad testified that, armed with a search warrant and accompanied by other officers, he presented himself at a certain address and asked for the appellant, and when she appeared he served the search warrant upon her and proceeded to search the house. Some fifteen minutes later, and while the search was in progress, one Dandy made his appearance at the house, and when being questioned by the officers as to his business stated that he had 'played a play' with the appellant the day before, had 'hit' and had come to collect and place another play with the appellant. The appellant, who was present during this conversation with Dandy, was arrested, carried to the police station, searched by a matron, and in her underclothes were found a sack containing money and several slips of paper, which, according to Officer Bond who qualified as an expert on policy, contained writings which evidenced that they were policy plays and were designed and adapted for use in connection with policy games.
Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in her behalf.
We shall discuss the contentions advanced by appellant's able counsel in brief and argument.
There are no formal bills. The statement of facts reveals that an objection was made and overruled, and a motion to quash the panel was made and overruled, because the court ordered the appellant to seat her six-year old granddaughter among the [166 TEXCRIM 226] spectators and not at the counsel table with her. As stated, only the objection and the rulings appear before us, and we do not have sufficient facts before us to appraise the injury, if any, to the appellant resulting from such rulings. In view of this fact, it is not necessary for us to determine if the last three paragraphs of Judge Davidson's opinion in Odell v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 209, 184 S.W. 208, upon which appellant relies, constitute the holding of the majority or merely expression of Judge Davidson's views.
Appellant next complains that she was not permitted to inquire of a prospective juror if she 'would give the same consideration to the evidence and testimony of a case involving policy that she could give if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...judge to limit the questioning for various reasons. Dworaczyk v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 354 S.W.2d 937 (1962); Broussard v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 224, 312 S.W.2d 664 (1958); Barry v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 204, 305 S.W.2d 580 (1957); Kincaid v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, supra; McCarte......
-
People v. Wade
...State v. Pokini (1961), 45 Haw. 295, 367 P.2d 499; People v. Richardson (1959), 51 Cal.2d 445, 334 P.2d 573; Broussard v. State (1958), 166 Tex.Cr.R. 224, 312 S.W.2d 664. The claim of defendant that the search was too extensive is without merit. When probable cause is present justifying a l......
-
Battie v. State, 53166
...judge to limit the questioning for various reasons. Dworaczyk v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 354 S.W.2d 937 (1962); Broussard v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 224, 312 S.W.2d 664 (1958); Barry v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 204, 305 S.W.2d 580 (1957); Kincaid v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 485, 281 S.W. 855 (1926);......
-
Cannady v. State, 60773
...for him to offer for the record on a bill of exception copies of the search warrant and of the affidavit. Broussard v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 224, 312 S.W.2d 664 (1958); Doby v. State, 383 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). The affidavit and warrant are hearsay and generally are not admissible bef......