Harris v. State, s. 54827-54829
| Citation | 565 S.W.2d 66 |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 54827-54829,s. 54827-54829 |
| Parties | Amos J. HARRIS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Before The Court En Banc.
These are appeals from two convictions for delivery of marihuana (Cause No. 32031 in Jefferson County (our Cause No. 54,827) and Cause No. 32205 in Jefferson County (our Cause No. 54,829)) and one conviction for delivery of lysergic acid diethylamide (Cause No. 32035 in Jefferson County (our Cause No. 54,828)). The appellant pleaded guilty to all three indictments and upon the appellant's motion, the pleas of guilty were consolidated and a jury was empaneled to assess punishment in all three cases. The jury assessed the appellant's punishment at ten years in both Cause No. 54,827 and Cause No. 54,829, and fifteen years in Cause No. 54,828.
The appellant contends that the two indictments for delivery of marihuana were fundamentally defective and that the trial judge erred by allowing the prosecutor to introduce a tape recording to impeach the appellant. We reverse the judgments in Cause Nos. 54,827 and 54,829 and affirm and reform the judgment in Cause No. 54,828.
The evidence reveals that during 1974 the appellant worked in the Jefferson Chemical Plant in Port Neches. During October, 1974, Jerry Henderson, an acquaintance of the appellant's, introduced the appellant to Linda Sonnier Fisher, who was also employed in the plant. When the appellant was introduced to Fisher, he apparently told her that he could get her any kind of drugs she wanted.
Fisher, who was working with the plant's security division to locate drug traffickers in the plant, received a tablet from the appellant at the plant on November 1, 1974. Fisher gave it to a Mr. Fults in the plant's safety office. Fults had the tablet analyzed and the analysis showed that it contained lysergic acid diethylamide.
On December 14, 1974, the appellant and Fisher met at the Mohawk Bowling Lanes. Fisher was under constant surveillance by Officer Victor Gonzales of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. According to Fisher, the appellant told her that he could not deliver her request for any "pills," but he could get her marihuana. Fisher agreed that marihuana would suffice. Fisher and the appellant left the bowling alley separately, but later the same day they met there again. At that time, the appellant gave Fisher a baggie of marihuana.
Finally, on December 20, 1974, the appellant delivered a box with pills and a baggie of marihuana to Fisher at the plant. The appellant was arrested by Officer Gonzales at that time.
The defensive evidence attempted to establish that the appellant agreed to get drugs for Fisher in return for Fisher's assistance in procuring a job at the plant for the appellant's brother-in-law. The appellant testified that he never took drugs and that he had sold drugs only to Fisher and only at the price he had paid for them.
The appellant's first two contentions deal with the indictments for delivery of marihuana (our Cause Nos. 54,827 and 54,829). Although the two indictments allege that the delivery of marihuana occurred on two separate dates, both indictments state that the appellant ". . . did then and there knowingly and intentionally deliver to Linda Sonnier marihuana."
The appellant contends, and the State concedes that the indictments are fundamentally defective.
Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., Article 4476-15, Section 4.05 the Texas Controlled Substances Act provides for offenses involving the possession and delivery of marihuana. Specifically, Section 4.05(d), (e) and (f) state:
In Suarez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 602, 603 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), we stated:
"The proper interpretation of these statutory provisions is that (1) delivery of more than one-fourth ounce of marihuana is a felony of the third degree regardless of whether the delivery was for remuneration; (2) the delivery of any amount of marihuana for remuneration is a felony of the third degree; and (3) the delivery of less than one-fourth ounce of marihuana without remuneration is a Class B misdemeanor."
Neither of the instant indictments allege the quantity of marihuana delivered or whether the delivery was for remuneration. Neither indictment alleges a felony offense, but both indictments allege offenses punishable as Class B misdemeanors.
Accordingly, the judgments in Cause Nos. 54,827 and 54,829 are reversed and the causes remanded to the trial court to be transferred to a court having jurisdiction of the misdemeanor offense of delivery of marihuana. Article V, Section 17, Texas Constitution; Article 21.26, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. 1 The appellant's first and second grounds of error are granted.
The appellant's third contention is that the trial judge committed reversible error by permitting the prosecutor to introduce into evidence a tape recording of a conversation between the appellant and Linda Sonnier Fisher.
After the State rested its case in chief, the appellant testified. During the prosecutor's cross-examination of the appellant, the prosecutor asked the appellant: (1) if he ever asked Fisher to go to bed with him; (2) if he ever asked Fisher to "shack-up" with him; and (3) if he ever asked Fisher to "curl up" with him. The appellant responded in the negative in each instance.
After the defense rested, the State called Fisher as a rebuttal witness. The prosecutor established that on December 10, 1974, Fisher and the appellant had a telephone conversation and that Fisher had tape recorded that conversation. Fisher identified the tape cassette, but the appellant stated that:
"Your Honor, I'm going to object to the listening of the tape because the proper predicate has not been laid."
The trial judge overruled the objection and the following was heard by the jury:
"(Male voice) 'Come shack up with me if you want.' "(Female voice) 'No, I'll pass this time.'
Although there was evidence that the appellant went by the name "Rabbit," there was no testimony as to whose voices were in fact on the tape after the tape was in fact played.
The appellant challenges the admissibility of the tape recording on the basis that a proper predicate had not been laid.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinones v. State, 62117
...either the trial judge or the prosecutor which of the seven Edwards requirements had specifically not been met. As in Harris v. State, 565 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), we hold that the objection to admission of the tape was "too general to preserve error." Id. at In addition, the Edwards re......
-
Carmona v. State
...(cumulated sentences); Tamez v. State , 620 S.W.2d 586, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (reinstated fine); Harris v. State , 565 S.W.2d 66, 70 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (reinstated punishment of fifteen years assessed by jury rather than ten years reflected in original judgment); Garza ......
-
Bird v. State
...involved. The only objection offered when the key was offered was that the proper predicate had not been laid. Under Harris v. State, 565 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), such objection was held to be too general to preserve error. See Boss v. State, 489 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Bennett v.......
-
Zani v. State
...review of the error is waived if no proper objection is made. Darland v. State, 582 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Harris v. State, 565 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). A specific objection raised on appeal will not be considered if it varies......
-
Table of cases
...on other grounds , 980 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) 1:185 Harris v. State 486 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) 1:40 Harris v. State 565 S.W.2d 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) 13:30 Harris v. State 645 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) 3:150 Harris v. State 738 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 198......
-
Controlled substances
...Indictment must allege amount of controlled substance as this determines the applicable punishment range. See, Harris v. State , 565 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Conviction for controlled substance violations in the amounts of 200 grams or more, but less than 400 grams, and for 400 grams......