Greer v. State, 28192
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Citation | Greer v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 377, 292 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956) |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28192,28192 |
| Parties | Elizabeth GREER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Howze & Howze, by John Howze, Monahans, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Our original opinion is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
The conviction is for the possession of heroin, a narcotic drug; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.
The testimony of two police officers shows that the appellant had in her possession a small bottle cap in which was a small piece of wet cotton.
The chemist testified that he extracted the contents of the bottle top with hot water and evaporated that to dryness and ran tests on the residue which indicated that the material extracted from the cotton was heroin.
We do not construe the Uniform Narcotics Act as authorizing a conviction for possessing a small piece...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
41 cases
-
Thomas v. US
...of a usable amount requirement); People v. Leal, 64 Cal.2d 504, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665 (1966) (en banc); Greer v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 377, 292 S.W.2d 122 (1956). Only Wisconsin held otherwise. See State v. Dodd, 28 Wis.2d 643, 137 N.W.2d 465 (1965). At the time these cases were dec......
-
King v. State
...of the substance was too small to be seen or measured. See Pelham v. State, 298 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1957); Greer v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 377, 292 S.W.2d 122 (1956). In Pelham, we held that the amount of substance possessed must be enough for use, or at least enough to see with the nake......
-
People v. Harrington
...common use, People v. Leal (1966), 64 Cal.2d 504, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665. Texas has adopted a similar rule, Greer v. State (1956), 163 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 292 S.W.2d 122. The majority of the states that have passed on the question have held that the quantity possessed is immaterial. Stat......
-
State v. McCarthy
...226, 228-29, 298 S.W.2d 171 (1957) (unusable amount of marihuana not within meaning of possession statute); Greer v. Texas, 163 Tex.Crim. 377, 378, 292 S.W.2d 122 (1956) (trace amount of heroin on cotton in We note that, notwithstanding the above cases, it is the majority view that any amou......
Get Started for Free
