Craddock v. State, 52027
Decision Date | 25 May 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 52027,52027 |
Citation | 553 S.W.2d 765 |
Parties | Edward Eugene CRADDOCK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
We granted appellant's motion for leave to file his motion for rehearing in order that we may revise the reasoning behind the disposition of his main contention on original submission.
By per curiam opinion, Tex.Cr.App., 552 S.W.2d 854, delivered November 10, 1976 (No. 52,027), we affirmed appellant's conviction for possession of marihuana. In so doing, we stated that:
Appellant had taken the stand in order to establish his defense of entrapment. He contends on rehearing that our disposition of his contention that the search and seizure were illegal ". . . fosters an impermissible and unconstitutional chill upon Appellant's rights to author and draft his own defense . . . ." We agree.
The general rule that the legality of a search need not be considered when the defendant testifies to or otherwise produces evidence of the same facts is correctly stated in the opinion on original submission. However, there is another rule which is applicable: The harmful effect of improperly admitted evidence is not cured by the fact that the accused sought to meet, destroy or explain it by the introduction of rebutting evidence. Nicholas v. State, 502 S.W.2d 169, 174 ( ).
In Nicholas, we distinguished the two rules:
(Emphasis included). Id., at 174-175.
We feel appellant's admitted possession of the marihuana was a necessary predicate to his defense of entrapment, thus bringing his testimony within our reasoning in Nicholas. See also, Alvarez v. State, 511 S.W.2d 493, 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1973, Opinion on State's Second Motion for Rehearing). It is necessary to determine the legality of the search. We now do so.
Appellant contends that the warrantless search of his vehicle was without probable cause and absent exigent circumstances. As stated on original submission, the facts are:
"In June of 1974, Otis Ray Priestley and appellant were both employed at a Lubbock automobile dealership. Priestley, a paid informant of the Lubbock Drug Task Force, consisting of State and Federal officers, was told that appellant could arrange a sale of marihuana. They discussed such a sale several times. An agreement was reached on July 2.
Priestley arranged for Officers Hudgens and Douglas of the Drug Enforcement Agency to meet with appellant. Later the same afternoon Priestley and the two officers went to appellant's home. Negotiations were conducted there concerning the price of fifty to sixty pounds of marihuana. They agreed to conduct further negotiations at a local motel later that evening.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eisenhauer v. State
...Coyne v. State, supra [485 S.W.2d 917 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) ]." See also Scott v. State, 531 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Craddock v. State, 553 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).1 Also I do not agree with observations in note 7, for the case quoted involved occupants of a pickup truck and perforce......
-
Howard v. State, 61438
...would be "an impermissible and unconstitutional chill upon Appellant's right to author and draft his own defense." See also Craddock v. State, 553 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Cr.App.1977, Opinion on Appellant's Motion for Rehearing) (defendant's assertion of the defense of entrapment did not waive the ......
-
Delgado v. State, 961-84
...would find evidence pertaining to a crime. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Craddock v. State, 553 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), cert. den. 434 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 306, 54 L.Ed.2d 193 (1977). A search of a car trunk may be justified by specific arti......
-
Richardson v. State
...We are not concerned in this cause with any pre-trial motion regarding the defense of entrapment, for none was filed. Craddock v. State, 553 S.W.2d 765 (1977), reaffirmed the rule that "The harmful effect of improperly admitted evidence is not cured by the fact that the accused sought to me......