Harris v. State, 36494
| Decision Date | 12 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36494,36494 |
| Citation | 375 S.W.2d 310 |
| Parties | Andrew HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is unlawful possession of a narcotic drug; the punishment, five years in the state penitentiary.
Mack Sterling, a police officer for the city of Abilene and witness for the state, testified that he and two other officers (George Morrison and George Maxwell) went to the home of appellant the day in question, without a warrant for his arrest but with a search warrant, a copy of which was given to appellant; that appellant met them at the door, stating that he lived there and gave them permission to search the apartment. Officer Sterling further testified that every room in the apartment was searched and that he found a Prince Albert tobacco can in a dresser drawer containing what appeared to be marijuana, based on his past experience with the narcotic. Also, that the can and its contents were marked by him for identification and remained in his custody and control until mailed to Austin for analysis. The officer also stated that appellant was not under arrest and could have left up until the time the marijuana was found.
C. H. Beardsley, a chemist with the Texas Department of Public Safety, and witness for the state, identified the tobacco can in question as the one whose contents had been examined by him in Austin and found to contain 2.45 grams of marijuana, a narcotic drug.
George E. Morrison, a police officer who had aided in the search of the apartment, testified that he found what appeared to be marijuana seeds behind and underneath the couch and further that the seeds so found were placed in a paper bag, marked by him for identification and subsequently mailed to Austin. Both the paper bag and the tobacco can were identified by the officers as the ones found in appellant's apartment.
Officer Sterling testified that when appellant came to the door of the apartment, '* * * I told him that we had information that he had some dope at his house.' Appellant moved for a mistrial which was denied. The jury, however, was instructed not to consider the statement for any purpose.
Appellant's contention that the court's failure to grant a mistrial was reversible error cannot be sustained. It has been well settled since the early case of Miller v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 185 S.W. 29, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waldo v. State
...jury and is of such character as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced on their minds." Harris v. State, 375 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). 3 In Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), we opined: "In the vast majority of cases in which argument ......
-
Hopkins v. State
...Dove v. State, 402 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); Gaines v. State, 400 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); Harris v. State, 375 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1964); Miller v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 185 S.W. 29 (1916); Hatcher v. State, 43 Tex.Cr.R. 237, 65 S.W. 97 (1901); Miller v. State,31 Tex.Cr.......
-
People v. Matteson
...409, 284 N.W. 926; State v. Leaks, 124 N.J.L. 261, 264, 10 A.2d 281. But see Temple v. State, 195 N.W.2d 850, 853-854 (Ind.); Harris v. State, 375 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Tex.Crim.App.); cf. Goldsmith v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 277 F.2d 335, 342 (semble); State v. Robinson, 238 S.C. 1......
-
Salinas v. State
...of the trial court's instruction to the jury withdrawing the second count from their consideration for any purpose (Harris v. State, 375 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Cr.App.1964)), and the repeated references (by the State's prosecutor, without objection, and by defense counsel during jury arguments at ......