Glaze v. State, 29343

Citation310 S.W.2d 88,165 Tex.Crim. 626
Decision Date08 January 1958
Docket NumberNo. 29343,29343
PartiesCarl GLAZE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Woody & Showers, Clyde W. Woody, Houston, for appellant.

L. F. Benson, Dist. Atty., Galveston, William H. Davis, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Galveston, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana; the punishment, three years.

Investigator Henson of the staff of the Criminal District Attorney of Galveston County and Assistant Criminal District Attorney Zgourides, armed with a search warrant issued to Henson authorizing him to search the appellant's automobile for narcotics, presented themselves at his apartment and made their presence known; the appellant invited them in and inquired of the nature of their business. Upon being told the nature of the search warrant which Henson possessed, the appellant said, 'You have got me. * * * I have got some stuff here in the apartment,' and then walked to the kitchen and returned with approximately thirty marijuana cigarettes and a half gallon of bulk marijuana. Following this, the search warrant was read to the appellant, and Henson descended the stairs and searched the appellant's automobile which was located nearby, and there found three marijuana cigarettes.

The appellant did not testify in his own behalf but offered several witnesses who gave testimony concerning his reputation.

We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and will discuss those contentions advanced by able counsel in his brief and argument which we deem determinative of this appeal.

He first contends that Henson was not a peace officer who was authorized to execute a search warrant. While the disposition of this case does not necessarily depend upon an answer to this contention, we do observe a fact which we heretofore overlooked; that Article 326k-6, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., provides that investigators appointed by district and county attorneys shall have the same authority as sheriffs of the county to serve any warrants, and Article 326k-28, Section 3, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., provides that the Criminal District Attorney of Galveston County shall have the same powers as are by law conferred upon district and county attorneys throughout the State and that it would naturally follow that having such power, an investigator which he might appoint would have the same authority as any other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Powell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 3, 1973
    ...See Juarez v. State, 479 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sikes v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 443, 334 S.W.2d 440 (1960); Glaze v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 310 S.W.2d 88 (1958); Long v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 651, 258 S.W.2d 818 (1953); Jenkins v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 24 S.W.2d 1092 (1930). This......
  • Gunaca v. State of Tex.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 3, 1995
    ...in criminal cases. Tex.Gov't Code Ann. Sec. 41.109(a). Investigators are also authorized to execute search warrants. Glaze v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. 626, 310 S.W.2d 88 (1958). In performing these functions, which necessarily involves interaction with the public, investigators are no less repr......
  • Phillips v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 14, 1959
    ...and was admissible. Sparks v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 100, 275 S.W.2d 494; Smith v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 637, 253 S.W.2d 665; Glaze v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 310 S.W.2d 88. The State offered this proof through the witness Lt. Souter and the marijuana cigarette and the bottle and contents were off......
  • Fenoglio v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 21, 2008
    ...when appellant indicated he had more marijuana, followed appellant to his apartment "15 or 20 blocks away"); Glaze v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. 626, 310 S.W.2d 88, 89-90 (1958) (holding that possession of marijuana in apartment and in car constituted one offense when officers served search warra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT