Carmouche v. State
Decision Date | 14 July 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 50354,50354 |
Citation | 540 S.W.2d 701 |
Parties | Robert Booker CARMOUCHE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Marvin O. Teague, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Alvin Titus, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the possession of not more than two ounces of marihuana. Punishment was assessed by the court at thirty days.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
On December 14, 1973, Officer J. M. Vaughn received information from an informant that he had seen a cigar box containing marihuana in appellant's apartment. The informant gave Officer Vaughn appellant's address in Houston and a description of his car.
Vaughn and two other officers met the informant at the apartment complex. Appellant and a female companion, a Miss McIntire, were loading their belongings into a trailer when the officers arrived. Appellant and his companion drove away. After they had driven about three or four hundred yards on the Gulf Freeway, the officers stopped them and searched the car. During the search, Vaughn found a cigar box containing a half ounce of marihuana.
The evidence is sufficient to show that appellant possessed the marihuana found in the car.
It is contended that the proof does not show that there was a usable amount of marihuana found. The evidence shows that there was a half ounce of marihuana in the cigar box. There was no direct testimony that this was a usable amount.
The Legislature apparently recognized that one fourth ounce of marihuana was a usable amount when it adopted Section 4.05(f) of the Texas Controlled Substances Act. It provides:
'An offense under Subsection (d) is a Class B misdemeanor if the actor delivers one fourth ounce or less without receiving remuneration.'
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to conceive that a half ounce of any leafy substance would not be sufficient to make several cigarettes.
We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to establish that appellant possessed a usable quantity of marihuana. See People v. Locke, 274 Cal.App.2d 541, 79 Cal.Rep. 367 (4th Cir., Div. 1, 1969).
Complaint is made that the trial court erred in failing to require the State to disclose the identity of the informant. Officer Vaughn testified that the informant saw a cigar box containing marihuana in the apartment. Officers met the informant at the apartment complex. The informant and Officer Vaughn watched appellant and McIntire load their belongings into a car. The informant left before appellant was arrested.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639, wrote
'. . . The problem (of disclosure of informant's identity) is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense. . . .'
The identity of an informant need not be disclosed unless (1) the informant participated in the offense; (2) was present at the time of the offense or arrest; (3) was otherwise shown to be a material witness to the transaction or as to whether appellant knowingly committed the act charged. Barber v. State, 511 S.W.2d 937 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Enriquez v. State,501 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Bueno v. State, 501 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Sessions v. State, 498 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). See also Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964); McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967). In the instant case the informant was not present at the time appellant was arrested nor was the informant a participant in the offense. Appellant contends, however, that the informant was a material witness because the informant would have established whether appellant knowingly possessed the marihuana found in the cigar box. The informant told Officer Vaughn that he saw marihuana in appellant's apartment. Marihuana was found in appellant's car.
Even if it could be assumed that the informant could testify that appellant knowingly possessed marihuana in the apartment, this would not make him a witness to the possession of marihuana in the car.
Appellant relies upon James v. State, 493 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). In James, the informant brought the defendant and the undercover agent together and was present when the sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. US, 91-CF-113
...(citations omitted); People v. Carrasco, 118 Cal.App.3d 936, 173 Cal.Rptr. 688, 695 (1981) (citations omitted); Carmouche v. State, 540 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Crim.App.1976) (citation omitted). 32 Lausterer v. State, 693 P.2d 887, 890 (Alaska Ct.App.1985) ("a person who sells or possesses fo......
-
Pena v. State
...2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 1151, at *12 (Tex.App.-Dallas Feb. 13, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (citing Carmouche v. State, 540 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1976)); accord Schillings v. State, No. 12-03-00069-CR, 2004 WL 1192634, at *3, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4864, at *9 (Tex.App.......
-
Kemner v. State, 55786
...or, in the alternative, the informant was a material witness on the issue of appellant's culpable mental state. In Carmouche v. State, 540 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was stated "The identity of an informant need not be disclosed unless (1) the informant participated in the offense; (2......
-
State v. Wandix, 61201
...on two recent occasions by the same court. Etchieson v. State, 574 S.W.2d 753, 757 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Carmouche v. State, 540 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). In People v. Lewis, 57 Ill.2d 232, 311 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ill.1974), the Illinois Supreme Court also held that a defendant has a......