Gonzales v. State

• Decision Date: 16 November 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 11158.)
• Citation: 299 S.W. 901
• Parties: GONZALES v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

299 S.W. 901

GONZALES v.STATE.

(No. 11158.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 16, 1927.

Appeal from Harris County Court, at Law; Ben F. Wilson, Judge.

Juliana Gonzales was convicted for selling marijuana, and she appeals.Affirmed.

Thos. F. Whiteside, Jr., and W. P. Castle, both of Houston, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for selling marijuana; punishment, a fine of $25.

Officers in Houston were trying to stop the sale of marijuana.A negro woman named Jessie Thompson was approached and she told the officers she thought certain Mexicans in her neighborhood were selling same.They gave her a dollar and told her to see if said parties were so engaged.She took the money and went to the house of appellant.The officers followed.Appellant was on her porch.Jessie asked her if she had some "griefus," that being the vernacular for marijuana.Appellant went into the house, procured and handed to Jessie a package of marijuana, and received from Jessie the dollar bill.At this juncture the officers appeared and arrested appellant.Her conviction followed.She testified on the trial and did not contradict the state's testimony in any particular, but on the contrary admitted that Jessie came to her house and asked her for some marijuana, and that she got it and gave it to Jessie, and that Jessie placed the one dollar bill in her hand, at which time the officers came in, arrested her, and put her in jail.She further said she did not sell marijuana nor offer to sell it, but that Jessie had put the bill in her hand just as the officers came in.

There are three bills of exception.No. 1 sets out objections to the testimony of Officer Favors upon the ground that he had no search warrant when he entered appellant's house, and therefore had no right to relate what he saw after entering.Without further discussion, we state that all the officer testified to was fully related and agreed to by appellant on the witness stand, and the same facts were also testified to by the woman Jessie.Appellant having testified to the same facts as stated by the officer concerning what took place in the house, she cannot now claim to have been injured by the testimony of the officer, even if same was improperly admitted.Parker v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 78, 238 S. W. 943;Scharff v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 605, 271 S. W. 83.This conclusion is especially correct in view of the fact that appellant was...