Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 18 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 26614,26614
• Citation: Brown v. State, 263 S.W.2d 261, 159 Tex.Crim. 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1953)
• Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 261

263 S.W.2d 261

159 Tex.Crim. 306

BROWN v.STATE.

No. 26614.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 18, 1953.

William H. Scott, Jr., Houston, for appellant.

William H. Scott, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana; the punishment, six years.

State Highway Patrolman Mayfield testified that on the night in question, while on routine patrol accompanied by his friend Haney, his attention was attracted to an automobile being driven at an excessive rate of speed, which he approximated at seventy miles per hour.Mayfield stated that he turned around and gave chase and that the chase continued for more than ten miles, during the course of which he attained a speed of ninety miles per hour.The witness stated that when he finally overtook the automobile the appellant exhibited a California driving license, and he required the appellant to get out of his automobile, searched his person and found twenty-one marijuana cigarettes in his coat pocket.Mayfield stated that a search of appellant's automobile resulted in his finding a sack of bulk marijuana under the front seat and a loaded pistol above the visor on the driver's side.The officer testified that in answer to questions the appellant told him that he had bought the marijuana from a man in Houston.

Appellant was carried to the jail in Houston, and the State properly established the chain of custody and analysis of the marijuana seized.

Mr. Haney corroborated the testimony of officer Mayfield.

Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but sought through his wife and mother to prove that he had never before been convicted of a felony or unlawfully connected with marijuana.

Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the overruling of his objection to the introduction into evidence of the results of the search by officer Nayfield.His contention is that since the arrest was for speeding the arresting officer had the right to detain the appellant only long enough to secure from him his written promise to appear in court, as provided by Sections 147and148 of Article 6701d, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., and did not have the right to search the appellant or his automobile.Appellant seeks to distinguish his case from our holding in Soileau v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 244 S.W.2d 224, by saying that the arrest in that case was for the violation of a city ordinance.We are unable...