Durham v. State, 27689
Decision Date | 25 June 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 27689,27689 |
Parties | Maggie DURHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.
Dan W. Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the sale of heroin, a narcotic drug, to David W. McNealy who, the evidence reveals, was an undercover agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
The jury assessed the punishment at two years in the penitentiary.
McNealy testified that on August 16 he was informed that appellant 'would purchase a quantity of heroin', and he went to her to receive the heroin.
He further testified:
On cross-examination he testified:
'
'
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Posey v. State
...agency is no defense in such prosecutions. Accommodation agency as applied in narcotics cases began with Durham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 25, 280 S.W.2d 737 (1955). In Durham the Court applied the doctrine of accommodation agency that had been applied in prosecutions for the sale of liquor in......
-
Com. v. Simione
...118 N.E.2d 361 . . ..' (Emphasis supplied.) To the same effect see Jones v. State, 481 P.2d 169 (Okl.Cr.App.1971); Durham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 25, 280 S.W.2d 737 (1955); Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Ct.Crim.App.1965); United States v. Moses, 220 F.2d 166 (3rd Cir. 1955); United St......
-
Roy v. State
...a circuit judge. The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1955); People v. Buster, 286 App.Div. 1141, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (1955); Townsel v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 286 S.W.2d 162 (1956);......
-
State v. Schultz
...v. State (footnote 2), which particularly fits the facts of the instant case, where the court said: We think that the New York cases and the Durham case are correct and reject the view that one who acts only as an agent, servant or employee of a law enforcement officer in the purchase of na......
-
Table of cases
...1:80 Duke v. State 865 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) 12:110 Dunn v. State 721 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) 3:590 Durham v. State 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955) 13:40 Dusek v. State 978 S.W.2d 129 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d) 1:200 Dusky v. U.S. 362 U.S. 402 (1960). 3:......
-
Controlled substances
...law enforcement authorities he is not guilty of making a sale. Smith v. State , 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Crim.App. 1965); Durham v. State , 162 Tex.Crim. 25, 280 S.W.2d 737 (1955); Townsel v. State , 162 Tex.Crim. 433, 286 S.W.2d 162 (1956). If the law enforcement officer represented cannot be f......
-
New Techniques in Defending Drug Cases
...Laws 1971, C.119, §§ 2-101 et. seq. 25. 356 Mass. 452, 253 N.E.2d 346 (Mass. 1969). 26. 253 N.E.2d at 348, 349. 27. 162 Tex. Cr. R. 25, 280 S.W.2d 737 (1955). 28. 280 S.W.2d at 739. 29. 162 Tex. Cr. R. 433, 286 S.W.2d 162 (1956). 30. 396 S.W.2d 876 (1965). 31. 15 Ill. 2d 494, 155 N.E.2d 578......