Dominguiz v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 36192,36192 |
| Citation | 373 S.W.2d 241 |
| Parties | Chester Soto DOMINGUIZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney for appellant on appeal.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, Joe C. Shaffer and F. M. Stover, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is unlawfully possessing a narcotic drug, to-wit: morphine; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for forty-five (45) years.
Police Officers Shelton and Hightower testified that they had received information from a credible person that the appellant had narcotics in his possession and would be at a particular location in Harris County, Texas. They further testified that they proceeded to this location where they found the appellant, proceeded toward him, and observed him swallow a white cellophane paper which he held at the time he was approached. Each officer testified that the appellant voluntarily consented to the extraction of the white cellophane paper by means of a stomach pump, or by means of voluntary regurgitation produced by a saline solution. The appellant was taken to the hospital where each of the officers observed the appellant drink the saline solution, which was administered by the doctor in attendance at the emergency room. The subsequent regurgitation produced the white cellophane paper which the officers identified as the same paper the appellant had swallowed earlier. This paper was placed in an envelope, identified by the initials of each of the officers, the appellant's name and date, and deposited in a locked container in the Narcotics Division.
Mr. Robert F. Crawford, chemist in the City of Houston Police Department Criminal Laboratory, testified that he recovered the envelope containing the white cellophane paper from the locked container, and conducted a chemical analysis of the contents, which he determined to be approximately .9 grams of 17% pure morphine.
Mr. Frank Keegan, Deputy District Clerk of Harris County, Texas, testified that the documents pertaining to the instant case, over which he had care, custody and control, indicated that the offense occurred on the 23rd day of September, 1958; that the case was previously set for trial April 20, 1959, on which date a bond forfeiture was declared, and that a new bond was executed on the 4th day of June, 1962.
The appellant did not testify and offered no evidence. No exceptions nor objections were taken to the Court's charge. The appellant has not favored us with a brief.
The arrest and search of the appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roderick
...arrest and escape from jail or from the custody of an officer. State v. Neal, 231 La. 1048, 93 So.2d 554 (1957); Dominguiz v. State, 373 S.W.2d 241 (Tex.Crim.App.1963); 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 205. The evidence presented by the State was properly admitted as tending to show the Fact......
-
Aguilar v. State
...He was rearrested June 27, 1966. 1 The evidence was properly admitted. Guajardo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 853; Dominguiz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 241. The court did not err in refusing to limit the evidence of flight. A charge is on the weight of the evidence if it singles ......
-
Wilson v. State
...was filed. Crawford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 305 S.W.2d 362; Brooks v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 555, 342 S.W.2d 439; Dominguiz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 241. We overrule the contention that 'ten drill bits' is an inadequate description of the property alleged to have been stolen. (A......
-
Logan v. State, 48067
...returned to Dallas for trial. Evidence that appellant forfeited his bail bond is clearly admissible to show flight. Dominguiz v. State, 373 S.W.2d 241 (Tex.Cr.App.1963), and cases therein cited. Accord: Guajardo v. State, 378 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Aguilar v. State, 444 S.W.2d 935 Ap......