Gomez v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 35355,35355 |
| Citation | 365 S.W.2d 165 |
| Parties | Arturo GOMEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joseph Chacon, San Antonio, for appellant.
James E. Barlow, Dist. Atty., Norma Lee Fink, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is the unlawful possession of narcotics paraphernalia, a prior conviction for sale of heroin being alleged; the punishment, 30 years.
The prior conviction was established by the evidence.
Police Officers Creed and Dotson, and Irvin Maroney, agent in the Narcotics Section of the Texas Department of Public Safety, went to the upstairs apartment of the appellant with a search warrant.
As the officers entered the premises a man, identified in the testimony of appellant's wife at the trial as Robert Gonzales, jumped out the window and was pursued by Agent Maroney, but escaped.
Officer Creed saw appellant running into the bedroom and stopped him. Officer Dotson searched the apartment. He found an eye dropper with bulb and needle, marked 'Basilia Pharmacy', under the linoleum in the dining room; a box of #5 gelatin capsules in a closet and another in the attic, and found a still warm bottle cap or 'cooker' in the dining room.
Accompanied by the appellant in their search on the outside, Officers Creed and Maroney found an unmarked eye dropper with a hypodermic needle attached and Officer Maroney found a white powder in a finger stall inside of two other finger stalls.
Chemist Leslie C. Smith testified as to tests run upon the objects and substances mentioned, which were properly identified and admitted in evidence. He testified that analysis was made and the unmarked eye dropper was found to contain heroin, but the eye dropper marked 'Basalia Pharmacy' contained nothing; the bottle cap contained heroin and the 1.28 grams of white powder in the finger stall was 50% pure heroin.
Appellant's confession was introduced in evidence following a hearing in the jury's absence as to whether it was voluntarily made. The confession included the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adair v. State
...is settled that possession in a narcotics case need not be exclusive. Evans v. State, 456 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Gomez v. State, 365 S.W.2d 165 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); King v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 34, 335 S.W.2d 378 (1960); Perry v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 297 S.W.2d 187 (1957). Facts a......
-
Payne v. State
...458 S.W.2d 813; Spriggins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 676; Massiate v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 802; Gomez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 165; Nava v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 340 S.W.2d 955; Davila v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 502, 335 S.W.2d In the instant case, the evidence sh......
-
Hebert v. State
...evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. See Noah v. State, 495 S.W.2d 260, 263–64 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) ; Gomez v. State, 365 S.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Tex.Crim.App.1963) ; Harris v. State, 173 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). We overrule appellant's first issue.B. Mot......
-
Perez v. State, No. 07-06-0434-CR (Tex. App. 7/28/2008)
...the scales is not controlling for purposes of determining whether probable cause existed for Appellant's arrest. See Gomez v. State, 365 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Tex.Crim.App. 1963) (citing Hargiss v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 531, 360 S.W.2d 881, 882 (1962)). Accordingly, Appellant's arrest for possess......