Garcia v. State, 44519
| Citation | 473 S.W.2d 488 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 44519,44519 |
| Parties | Mary Ellen GARCIA and Joe G. Herrera, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
John Eaton, San Angelo, for Mary Ellen Garcia and Jerry Johnson, San Angelo, for Joe G. Herrera, for appellant.
Frank C. Dickey, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Aaron Goldberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Angelo, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is sale of heroin; the punishment, twenty-five (25) years. These appellants were indicted separately but tried jointly. Since their conviction the appellant Mary Ellen Garcia has escaped and has not been returned to custody and her appeal is dismissed. Appellant Herrera advances several grounds of error. His first is that the Court erred in failing to charge on the defense of entrapment. A detailed statement of the facts is necessary.
Agents Larsen and Flynn of the Narcotic Section of the Department of Public Safety testified that they were in San Angelo on the day in question acting under cover and went to a certain pool hall where they were approached by appellant Herrera and asked if they wanted to 'score for some smack.' It was explained that 'score' meant to buy and 'smack' meant heroin in underworld parlance. After they stated that they did, they proceeded to the door of the poolroom and on the sidewalk they met appellant Garcia, and she said, 'Let's go, man, we can get the stuff.' They then proceeded in an unmarked State car, with the two agents in the front seat and Herrera and Garcia in the rear seat, to a certain grocery store where Garcia excused herself for a short period of time, then returned and delivered the narcotics to one of the agents. Prior to leaving the automobile, she demanded and received ten dollars from one of the agents. The substance delivered was established by the testimony of the chemist to be heroin.
Herrera did not testify, but Garcia testified that the two agents appealed to her sympathy, claiming that they were sick, and that she purchased the heroin from an unknown source as an accommodation for the two agents, whom she thought to be narcotic addicts. It should be noted that Garcia's appeal has been dismissed and Herrera did not testify.
Garcia's testimony as to what she and the agents said outside the poolroom could not accrue to Herrera's benefit because the agents had already made contact with Herrera and were on their way to get the narcotics when they first met Garcia. Her testimony could not be said to raise an issue that Herrera was entrapped and since Herrera did not testify the issue of entrapment as to him was not raised. Beck v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 360 S.W.2d 410 (1962). The testimony of Raymond Cruz that the narcotic agents went directly to Herrera when they entered the pool hall would not establish entrapment.
Appellant's second ground of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Reliance is had upon Durham v. State,162 Tex.Cr.R. 25, 280 S.W.2d 737 (1955). Durham has no application to Herrera. Durham holds that in some circumstances an accommodation purchaser may not be guilty of making a sale. No such facts are before us here. The only evidence in this record is that Herrera approached the officers originally and offered to sell them heroin. When the sale was shown to have been made the State's case was complete. It would appear that Herrera got more than he was entitled to when the Court charged on accommodation purchaser as to him.
The third ground of error is that the court erred in charging the jury on the law of principals in conjunction with the defense of accommodation agency. Reliance is had upon Chance v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 210 S.W. 208 (1919). The distinction is apparent. Chance acted alone, and to charge on the law of principals in such a case would have left the impression that the accommodation purchaser was acting as principal with the buyer. It is clear from the charge before us that the court was instructing the jury as to Herrera and Garcia acting together as principals. Appellant's third ground of error is overruled.
Appellant's fourth ground of error is that the evidence is insufficient as to the nature and quantity of the substance alleged to be heroin in this case. The testimony of the arresting officer that he ran the 'Marquis' test and that it showed the substance in question to be heroin was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gabriel v. State
...the identity of a controlled substance is generally determined through chemical analysis. See e.g., Garcia v. State, 473 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); and, Aguero v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 265, 298 S.W.2d 822, 824 (1957). Similarly, Thorpe and the cases from foreign jurisdictions make cl......
-
Guerrero v. State, 47690
...entrapment, necessarily assumes that the act charged was committed. Canales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 496 S.W.2d 614. See Garcia v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 473 S.W.2d 488; Perez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 495 S.W.2d 242. No error is In his fifth and sixth grounds of error, appellant asserts that the c......
-
State v. Ostrand
...548 (Fla.App.); People v. Abbott, 110 Ill.App.2d 462, 249 N.E.2d 675; State v. Bradshaw, 12 N.C.App. 510, 183 S.E.2d 787; Garcia v. State, 473 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Cr.App.). We think the case should be retried so that the defendant can endeavor to establish his defense. Enough appears from the p......
-
Lopez v. State
...the defense of entrapment, no charge on that defense is required. Bonsal v. State, 502 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Garcia v. State, 473 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Beck v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 360 S.W.2d 410 (1962). That was the situation here. Appellant did not testify, the arrest......