Grady v. State, 63208
| Decision Date | 16 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 63208,No. 2,63208,2 |
| Citation | 634 S.W.2d 316 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Dennis Leon GRADY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Randy Martin, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., & Michael Kuhn & Bill Taylor, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ.
Appellant appeals his conviction by a jury for possession of phentermine, a controlled substance. Art. 4476-15, V.A.C.S. The jury also assessed his punishment at five years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
Appellant has presented us with only one ground of error in his appeal, and that is the trial court's charge to the jury was rendered fundamentally erroneous because of the following parts of the charge:
Phentermine, an isomer of methamphetamine, is a controlled substance. (Emphasis Added).
Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Dennis Leon Grady, did in Harris County, Texas, on or about the 7th day of January, 1979, knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance, namely, phentermine, an isomer of methamphetamine, you will find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. (Emphasis Added).
Appellant claims that the above emphasized parts of the charge "removed from the jury's consideration the issue of whether or not phentermine is an isomer of methamphetamine."
The indictment in this cause alleges in pertinent part that the appellant "did then and there unlawfully intentionally and knowingly possess a controlled substance, namely, PHENTERMINE, an isomer of methamphetamine." (Emphasis Added). Appellant did not challenge the contents of the indictment by way of a motion to quash.
Appellant also did not make any objections to the trial court's charge. Furthermore, the record on appeal is without a statement of facts. However, this Court has recently held that if the record on appeal contains a clerk's transcript, and contained therein are the charging instrument and the court's charge, then a claim that fundamental error exists in the charge may be raised and reviewed on appeal without the necessity of having a statement of facts in the record. Alexander v. State, 580 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
We first agree with the appellant that it is axiomatic that a trial court in its charge to a jury should never give the jury an instruction which constitutes a comment by the court on the elements of the alleged offense, or assumes a disputed fact. Richardson v. State, 390 S.W.2d 773 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Marlow v. State, 537 S.W.2d 8 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Moreover, the trial court should always instruct the jury on the law which governs the charged offense. Furthermore, it is mandatory for the trial court to correctly apply the law of the offense to the facts of the case. See Doyle v. State, 631 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
However, "Phentermine was (at the time appellant committed the offense) and is now a controlled substance, and was then and is now subject to criminal prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act." See Ex parte Wilson, 588 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). It is now listed under Schedule IV and under penalty group 3 of the Controlled Substances Act. Art. 4476-15, supra. 1 Apparently, because of what this Court said in Riddle v. State, 560 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Lumberas v. State, 560 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); and Ex parte Wilson, supra, the State prepared the indictment in this cause as it did. It is also apparent that when the trial court prepared its charge, it likewise seized upon some of the language from those cases, and a deduction this Court made from one of the State's witnesses' testimony adduced in Wilson. In Wilson, the Court, in its discussion of the controlled substances of methamphetamine and phentermine, pointed out that the Director of the Houston Police Department Laboratory had testified during Wilson's trial that, "Phenteris an isomer of methamphetamine." Using this testimony, this Court then concluded that it was in error in holding in Riddle and Lumberas, supra, that there was no penalty for the possession or delivery of the controlled substance phentermine. "Since phentermine is an isomer of methamphetamine, we were in error when we stated in Riddle and Lumberas that there was no penalty provided for its possession or delivery."
Because we are without a transcription of the trial proceedings in this cause, we are unable to state what evidence the State presented to the jury to establish its case against appellant. We observe, however, that the verdict of the jury reads as follows: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of the offense of unlawfully possessing a controlled substance, namely, phentermine, an isomer of methamphetamine, as charged in the indictment." (Emphasis Added). We therefore must assume that the State presented evidence to substantiate its allegations of fact as contained in the indictment. Compare the facts in this cause with those of Ex parte Wilson, supra.
Nevertheless, we have concluded that the trial court partly erred when it instructed the jury in the abstract in this cause that the controlled substance phentermine was an isomer of methamphetamine, because at the time of appellant's offense phentermine was not so defined by any statute.
However, error occurring in a trial court's charge is not necessarily synonymous with fundamental or reversible error. Fundamental error in a trial court's charge does not occur unless it is demonstrated that because of the error in the charge, the charge was calculated to injure the rights of a defendant or that from the record as a whole it reflects that the error in the charge prevented a defendant from receiving a fair and impartial trial. Boles v. State, 598 S.W.2d 274, 278 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).
We cannot agree with the appellant that the partial error in the abstract definition of the word "Phentermine" constitutes fundamental error, and was error of such a degree that it rendered the charge as a whole fundamentally defective. We also cannot conclude that it was error either calculated to injure the rights of the appellant or that the error prevented the appellant from receiving a fair and impartial trial. Cf. Cumbie v. State, 578 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Furthermore, when the trial court instructed the jury in the application of the law to the facts paragraph of the charge, it did so in the terms of the indictment. See Doyle v. State, supra; Manry v. State, 621 S.W.2d 619, 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). 2
Appellant's ground of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
For the reasons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brock v. State
...the weight of the evidence and is erroneous.” 495 S.W.3d 14Whaley v. State, 717 S.W.2d 26, 32 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) ; see Grady v. State, 634 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (observing that the “trial court in its charge to the jury should never give the jury an instruction which constitu......
-
McGowan v. State
...... Page 739 . of the alleged offense, or assumes a disputed fact. Grady v. State, 634 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Richardson v. State, 766 S.W.2d 538, 542 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, pet. ref'd). A ......
-
Koffel v. State
...which constitutes a comment by the court on the elements of the alleged offense or assumes a disputed fact. Grady v. State, 634 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Richardson v. State, 390 S.W.2d 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1965); Cannon v. State, 84 Tex.Crim. 504, 208 S.W. 339, 341 (1918). The char......
-
Joseph v. State
...on the weight of the evidence and is erroneous. Whaley v. State, 717 S.W.2d26, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (en banc); Grady v. State, 634 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (panel op.). In determining whether a charge comments on the weight of the evidence, we review the "'charge as a who......