George v. State
| Decision Date | 15 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48285,48285 |
| Parties | Roger M. GEORGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roy Q. Minton, John L. Foster, Austin, for appellant.
Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty., Charles Craig, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is possession of marihuana; the punishment, ten years probated.
The sole question presented is the legality of the search. Officer Sides testified that he received an anonymous telephone call reporting that he (the caller) had seen marihuana growing in the back yard at a specific address (identified in subsequent testimony as the appellant's home) and that if he (Officer Sides) would go to that location, he would find a large quantity of marihuana growing there. Officer Sides proceeded to that location and went upon a vacant lot where some maintenance men were working adjacent to appellant's eight-foot high privacy fence. Through cracks and knotholes therein he was able to see marihuana plants growing inside. He stated that he was standing 'about a foot' from the fence when he peered through. The evidence is undisputed that the fence was located 18 inches inside the appellant's property line. After seeing the marihuana, Sides then secured a search warrant and upon entering appellant's back yard through the house he found 675 marihuana plants ranging in height from two and a half to four feet.
The question before us as stated advantageously to appellant in his brief is as follows:
A very similar fact situation was before this Court in Gil v. State, 394 S.W.2d 810, and Capuchino v. State, 389 S.W.2d 296. See also Gil v. Beto, 5 Cir., 440 F.2d 666. In these cases the officers went upon a common walkway at a tourist court and peered through defective venetian blinds. They proceeded to search without a warrant based upon what they saw through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ebarb v. State
...an investigation by proceeding to hunt for a car and occupants fitting the description given over the phone. See George v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 509 S.W.2d 347; Onofre v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 474 S.W.2d 699; Moses v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 116; Baity v. State, supra. Upon locating a ca......
-
Green v. State
...the occupant could have drawn but did not." Id. at 185. See also Long v. State, 532 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). In George v. State, 509 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), an officer, standing eighteen inches from a fence surrounding the defendant's property looked through cracks and knotholes ......
-
State v. Brown
...enough to conclude that Brown was in "plain view." One Texas case, not involving a rest room, must be addressed. In George v. State, 509 S.W.2d 347, 348 (Tex.Crim.App.1974), an officer, standing about a foot from a fence surrounding the defendant's property, looked through cracks and knotho......
-
State v. Kender, 6145
...(observation of marijuana in defendant's back yard enclosed only by waist high fence and intermittent vegetation); George v. State, 509 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (observation of defendant's backyard through cracks and knotholes in eight feet high fence by officer positioned in vacant l......