Darrow v. State, 47395
| Decision Date | 30 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47395,47395 |
| Citation | 504 S.W.2d 416 |
| Parties | William Paul DARROW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles R. Kaufmann, Austin, for appellant.
Robert H. Moore, III, Dist. Atty., Big Spring, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the offense of sale of marihuana; punishment was assessed at life imprisonment.
Two grounds of error are raised on appeal; the sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
Appellant first contends that the State totally failed to establish a proper chain of custody; he further alleges that the record clearly shows that the evidence had been tampered with. We cannot agree. The record reflects that the undercover agent involved purchased eight bags of marihuana from the appellant, and wrapped them with masking tape after having marked the tape. At the trial, the agent identified eight bags and a piece of tape as being the very same items purchased from the appellant.
The agent further testified that after marking the evidence he had turned it over to a Detective Cantwell. Cantwell testified that when the evidence was given to him he filled out an identifying tag (which he confirmed at the trial as being the same tag) and locked it in his locker at the police department. Later, Cantwell delivered the substance to the chemistry lab in Austin, relinquishing control of the evidence to the chemist there. A chemist from the Texas Department of Public Safety testified that the material received by his lab was, in fact, marihuana, and the sack handed him in court was the same matter he had examined.
Appellant argues that the substance should not have been allowed into evidence since it had been 'tampered' with. He bases this contention on the fact that Detective Cantwell admitted that the evidence remained in this locker at the police station for over two weeks and that other people had access to the room in which the locker was located. This is confirmed by the record, but the testimony also shows that the locker was bound with a key lock and that no one else had access to the locker itself besides Cantwell.
Likewise, appellant has shown that when the evidence was taken to Austin to be analyzed, for about an hour it was left in the motel room where the officer in charge was staying while he ate dinner at the motel restaurant. Thus, appellant has shown the Possibility which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, No. 2-06-416-CR (Tex. App. 4/24/2008)
...showing a possibility of tampering or commingling is not sufficient to deny admission of the evidence. Darrow v. State, 504 S.W.2d 416, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Dossett, 216 S.W.3d at Here, the State provided evidence to validate the beginning and the end of the chain of custody for the ......
-
Islas v. State
...existed absent affirmative evidence such occurred, is not sufficient to require exclusion of the evidence. Darrow v. State, 504 S.W.2d 416, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Dossett v. State, 216 S.W.3d 7, 18 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref'd). The trial court's admission of a blood sample an......
-
Qualls v. State
...an opportunity to tamper, alter, or commingle the challenged evidence is not sufficient to mandate its exclusion. Darrow v. State , 504 S.W.2d 416, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ; Patel v. State , No. 2-08-032-CR, 2009 WL 1425219, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 21, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., n......
-
Ramirez v. State, No. 08-03-00513-CR (TX 8/18/2005)
...but does not show conclusive tampering, such information goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Darrow v. State, 504 S.W.2d 416, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). Moreover, conflicting testimony as to the type of container evidence is placed in does not amount to a break in the ......