Gonzales v. State, 18148.
| Citation | 95 S.W.2d 972 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 18148.,18148. |
| Parties | GONZALES v. STATE. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bexar County; W. W. McCrory, Judge.
Julian Gonzales was convicted of possessing marihuana, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Guy P. Allison, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing a narcotic drug known as marihuana, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.
Appellant's bills of exception Nos. 1 to 5 complain of the introduction of evidence by the state under the following circumstances: That the officers went to the appellant's home in the city of San Antonio with a purported search warrant to search his home; that upon arrival they knocked on the door and told the appellant if he did not open the door they would break it down; that when he opened the door they entered and immediately arrested him; that while they had him under arrest they made a search of his home and found quite a quantity of marihuana in a suitcase, dresser drawer, and some wrapped in newspapers which they took possession of and offered in evidence at the trial, notwithstanding the court had quashed the search warrant and held it to be an illegal warrant. It appears from the record that the court admitted said testimony upon the theory that a felony was being committed by the appellant in the presence of the sheriff. It further appears from the record that the sheriff had on previous nights made visits to the appellant's home, entered upon appellant's premises, pressed his nose against a window sash in search for an odor of marihuana. When they did this, they were trespassers.
Article 727a, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. (Acts 1929, 2d Called Sess., c. 45, § 1), reads as follows: "No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case."
Section 9 of article 1, Bill of Rights of the Constitution of this state, provides as follows: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."
It occurs to us that the search made of the appellant's home under the illegal warrant was but a continuation of that which the officers had theretofore instituted without any warrant of any kind when they entered upon his premises and began to sniff for odors of marihuana, but whether it was or not makes but little difference, if any,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corbett v. State
...27 S.W.2d 188; Smith v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 139 S.W.2d 791; Tarwater v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 59, 267 S.W.2d 410; Gonzales v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 95 S.W.2d 972; Davis v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 421, 21 S.W.2d 509.2 Two other courts have recently discussed and upheld the emergency doc......
-
Brown v. State
...Gatlin v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 326 F.2d 666 (1963); Murphy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 73; Gonzales v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 95 S.W.2d 972. For '(i)f subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people w......
-
Giacona v. State
...entering on his premises on the ground that they were not at such time legally on his premises. Appellant relies upon Gonzales v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 95 S.W.2d 972, but overlooks the opinion of this Court in Crowell v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 180 S.W.2d 343, in which it was held that......
-
Meador v. State
...217, 43 S.W.2d 597; Williams v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 17 S.W.2d 56; Hall v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 365, 288 S.W. 202; Gonzales v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 95 S.W.2d 972. It must here be borne in mind that Arts. 4a and 4b, C.C.P. are no longer the law, they having been expressly repealed b......