Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1957 |
| Parties | Freddie Lee HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No, 28648. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[164 TEXCRIM 143] Robert B. Billings, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Thomas B. Thorpe, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the possession of heroin; the punishment, 35 years.
Officers searched an apartment which was shown to have been rented to the appellant. At the time of the search, Mary Elizabeth Taylor, Tommy Jean Dawson, and O. B. Blackshear were in the apartment and were arrested. A man was seen as he fled from the apartment, but he was not identified as the appellant. Dawson and Blackshear sub-rented from the appellant and occupied one bedroom jointly. Taylor was a former resident of the apartment and had come there on the day of the raid to get her clothes. A quantity of heroin was found in one room, but paraphernalia for administering narcotics was found in other rooms of the apartment.
Dawson, testifying for the State, identified the room where the heroin was found as being the one occupied by the appellant. She admitted that she was at the time of the trial serving a term in the penitentiary for possession of the heroin involved in this prosecution and admitted further that she had seen Blackshear in possession of heroin. On direct examination, she denied that the appellant had been in the apartment shortly before the raid. The State plead surprise and proved that Dawson had made an affidavit to the district attorney in which she stated that she had seen the appellant in the apartment placing the heroin, which was later found by the police, in capsules a short time before the raid.
The basic rule of evidence involved is expressed in Brown v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 114 S.W. 820, 822, wherein this Court in discussing what is now Article 795, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., said:
We need not determine if the charge requested by the appellant was too restrictive because we have concluded that it was sufficient to call the court's attention to the fact that he had not placed any limitation whatsoever on the contradictory statements in his charge.
The rule is expressed in Branch's Annotated Penal Code, 2d Ed., sec. 202, p. 223, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherb v. State
...conviction. Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App., 1967); Shivers v. State, 374 S.W.2d 672 (Tex.Cr.App., 1964); Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685 (1957); Lawhon v. State, 284 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App., 1955); Wells v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 227 S.W.2d 210 (1950); Carroll......
-
Wall v. State, 40473
...as primary evidence. Lawhon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 284 S.W.2d 730; Wells v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 227 S.W.2d 210; Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685; Shivers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 672; Rogers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 772. 1 Branch's Anno.P.C.2d Ed., Se......
-
Henley v. State
...all attempted impeachment of the said witness by the State.' The court failed to respond to either objection. In Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685, we had occasion to discuss fully the law relating to the court's charge in cases where a State's witness has been impeached. The......
-
State v. Snavely, Cr. N
...McFarlin v. State, 214 Tenn. 613, 381 S.W.2d 922 (1964); State v. Witmer, 174 Neb. 449, 118 N.W.2d 510 (1962); Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685 (1947). Therefore, it will be seen that while evidence of contrary statements made out of court are admissible as tending to discre......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...not consider the same for any other purpose. NO TES See, Johnson v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 534, 244 S.W.2d 235 (1951); Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685 (1957), for good analogous charge. If the State utilizes the prior convictions set forth in the indictment in a habitual case......