Gonzales v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 27031,27031 |
| Citation | 160 Tex.Crim. 548,272 S.W.2d 524 |
| Parties | Francisco GONZALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
William E. Davenport, San Angelo, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for possession of marijuana, the jury having assessed the minimum punishment.
The only contention seriously urged as reversible error is that the evidence as to the finding of marijuana in appellant's car was obtained by means of an unlawful search, and was therefore inadmissible.
Deputy Sheriff Wuertendurg testified that he apprehended appellant in the south part of San Angelo at about 1 o'clock a. m.; that appellant was driving an automobile and the officer informed him that he was arresting him for being in a cutting scrape.
Appellant, at the instance of and accompanied by the officer, drove to the police station and, after appellant was taken inside, the car was searched and a paper bag which contained a quantity of marijuana was found under the front seat.
Deputy Wuertenburg testified that in truth and in fact he arrested appellant in order to search his automobile for narcotics, that he knew appellant had not cut any one and he had previously arrested the party who had. He further testified that he was informed about midnight and believed that appellant was trying to peddle marijuana and that he had been furnished appellant's car license number.
Appellant contends that the state should be bound by the officer's statement to appellant as to the basis for the arrest, but cites no authority in support of such contention and we know of none.
The search of appellant's car, under the facts testified to by the officer, was authorized by the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, art. 725b, § 15, V.A.P.C., Deputy Sheriff Wuertenburg testifying that he had been informed and believed that appellant had marijuana in the car.
Appellant testified in the jury's absence as to the voluntary character of the confession which had already been admitted in evidence. An issue of fact appears to have been raised, for the District Attorney testified before the judge and denied the statement attributed to him by appellant.
It was then suggested to the court that appellant desired to take the witness stand before the jury for the single and limited purpose of testifying that the confession was not a voluntary one.
The trial judge declined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. State
...v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 293 S.W.2d 775 (1956); Holder v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 55, 143 S.W.2d 613 (1940); Gonzales v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 548, 272 S.W.2d 524 (1954); Rubens v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 71, 311 S.W.2d 242 (1958); 62 Tex.Jur.2d, Witnesses, § 210, p. In Gonzales and Rubens, it......
-
Huffman v. State
...See also Valerio v. State, 494 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Black v. State, 440 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Gonzales v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 548, 272 S.W.2d 524 (1954). "Once the defendant testifies '[t]he interests of the other party and regard for the function of the courts of justice ......
-
Brumfield v. State
...293 S.W.2d 781; Tyler v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 293 S.W.2d 775; Holder v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 55, 143 S.W.2d 613; Gonzales v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 548, 272 S.W.2d 524; Rubens v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 71, 311 S.W.2d 242; 62 Tex.Jur.2d, Witnesses, Sec. 210, p. In Holder v. State, supra, th......
-
Cisneros v. State
...See also Valerio v. State, 494 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Black v. State, 440 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Gonzales v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 548, 272 S.W.2d 524 (1954). Once the defendant testifies "[t]he interests of the other party and regard for the function of the courts of justice t......