Garrett v. State, 38911
| Decision Date | 02 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 38911,38911 |
| Citation | 400 S.W.2d 906 |
| Parties | Clarence GARRETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Tom Upchurch, Jr., Amarillo (on appeal only), for appellant.
Naomi Harney, County Atty., Charles W. Fairweather, Asst. County Atty., Amarillo, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for possession of a dangerous drug, barbiturates; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $350.00.
Deputy Sheriff DeBose testified that he and Deputy Sheriff Ball went to appellant's cafe, known as the Gay Paree, and the following excerpt from his testimony summarizes most of the facts relied upon by the state:
So he had a talk with 2 or 3 people. So he nodded his head and walked out and stayed out about 3 minutes and came back. So Clarence (Ball) and I decided that we would ask him out and talk with him. So we had got a lot of reports that he was selling pills and we asked him about it. So he said he didn't have anything but we could look if we wanted to. So we taken him out because we didn't want to embarrass him and we looked. So in his left sock we found a bag--a white bag. We found a white bag and we asked him could we look in his car--and he said that we could but the car was locked, so he opened the door. Clarence (Ball) looked in the car and under the underside of the bashboard he pulled out a little white jar I guess about that tall and maybe about that wide.
Dr. Jack Wyatt was qualified as an expert with 32 years experience in chemical analysis. He testified that he had analyzed the chemical content of the pills in the white paper bag and the bottle, and that they were barbiturates--a dangerous drug that is habit-forming.
Deputy Sheriff Ball testified to substantially the same facts as had his fellow officer, DeBose.
Appellant did not take the witness stand, nor did he present affirmative evidence in his behalf. We find the state's evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty.
[2, 3] Appellant contends that the conviction must be reversed because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montoya v. State
...Officer John Pasco and the Court is going to admit that evidence." A consent to search may be oral and still be valid. Garrett v. State, 400 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Marshburn v. State, 491 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); and see Jordan v. State, 506 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (Where t......
-
Potts v. State, 46551
...was resolved against him by the court. The consent was valid. Bennett v. State, 450 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Garrett v. State, 400 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); DeVoyle v. State, supra; Bradley v. State, 489 S.W.2d 896 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The trial court's findings are supported by the ......
-
Weeks v. State, 40037
...to the search would not render inadmissible the fruits of the search. See Lucas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 605, Garrett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 906, and cases there cited. None of the cases cited by appellant prohibit a voluntary waiver of a constitutional right such as we ......
-
Green v. State, 43985
...consent by both women who voluntarily gave these items to the police. Galloway v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 721; Garrett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 906. Appellant's fourth ground of error is There being no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed. 1 These contentions have also......