Haggerty v. State, 45972
| Decision Date | 28 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 45972,45972 |
| Citation | 490 S.W.2d 858 |
| Parties | Jimmy Carl 'Cactus' HAGGERTY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard Brooks Hardee, Tyler, for appellant.
Curtis L. Owen, Dist. Atty., Charles Crow, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tyler, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the sale of marihuana; the punishment, ten (10) years.
Tyler Police Officer Willie Hardy testified that on June 4, 1971, while working undercover he purchased a quantity of marihuana from appellant.
Appellant's first ground of error challenges the chain of custody of the marihuana. Agent Hardy testified that after the purchase he sealed the quantity in a 'lock-seal evidence envelope' and took it to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Laboratory in Dallas, and that he later picked up the same sealed container from the laboratory and returned it to a representative of the Tyler Police Department. He positively identified it by number, date and name when it was offered in evidence. The chemist witness identified the same container and testified as to his analysis of its contents.
Appellant's reliance upon Brown v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 144, 240 S.W.2d 310, is misplaced. In that case there was no showing that the blood sample taken by the nurse was the same sample which was forwarded by the doctor for analysis. In the case at bar we have no such gap in the identification. See Ochoa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 394 S.W.2d 172; Ray v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.App. 640, 343 S.W.2d 259; Gilderbloom v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 471, 272 S.W.2d 106; and McAllister v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 57, 261 S.W.2d 332.
Appellant's second ground of error is that the court permitted Officer Hardy to testify that in his opinion the substance which he purchased from appellant was marihuana. The record reflects Hardy joined the Tyler Police Force in October 1967 and worked as an undercover agent between April and June 1971. He based this opinion on the fact that he had 'handled and observed marihuana' prior to this occasion and 'had occasion to deal with this particular substance' after the date in question. We perceive no error in the admission of Officer Hardy's testimony. Ex parte Droppleman, Tex.Cr.App.,362 S.W.2d 853. Further, we have the testimony of Chemist Berens who was shown to be fully qualified and no issue of fact was raised as a result of the chemist's tests. He testified that the substance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenter v. State, 57218
...in fact taken place." 5 Then, pointing to the defense of alibi and denial that the event occurred, the State relies on Haggerty v. State, 490 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), but Haggerty is not dispositive because the trial court, in deleting from the charge any instruction relative to alibi,......
-
Spaulding v. State, 48202
...In several recent cases, we have rejected such contentions. Cyrus v. State, 500 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Haggerty v. State, 490 S.W.2d 858, 859 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Hamilton v. State, 480 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). The first complaint is Next, appellant complains of the cour......
-
Grady v. State, 63208
...and juries, and not this Court, to determine what is a proper punishment in a given case. See, for example, Haggerty v. State, 490 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), which states the general rule. For a further discussion of the doctrine of proportionality of punishment under the Eighth Amendmen......
-
Olivas v. State, 08-81-00208-CR
...with heroin. Heckert v. State, 612 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Nelson v. State, 503 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Haggerty v. State, 490 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Ground of Error No. Two is Ground of Error No. Three contends that Appellant was denied reasonably effective assistance of......