Haywood v. State, 45166
Decision Date | 12 July 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 45166,45166 |
Parties | J. D. HAYWOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
San A. Westergren, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Wm. B. Mobley, Jr., Dist. Atty., Thomas D. McDowell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of unlawful sale of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin. Punishment was assessed by the jury at 75 years.
Initially, appellant complains of the court's failure to charge the jury on the defense of entrapment. A timely special requested charge was presented.
In 16 Tex.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Sec. 102, Entrapment, at page 234, it is written:
In Sutton v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 617, 343 S.W.2d 452, this court stated:
In McKelva v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 298, this court held that:
In the case at bar the evidence shows that two deputy sheriffs with the Nueces County Sheriff's Department entered the Blue Note Lounge in Corpus Christi and purchased a 'paper' of heroin from the appellant. One of the officers stated that he was 'dressed like a merchant seaman with a knit stocking cap, a black turtleneck sweater, bell bottom blue denim pants and boots,' and that his partner 'had on slacks, a long sleeved yellow shirt, sport coat, no tie, and shoulder length hair.' After they entered the lounge they ordered beer from the appellant, who was apparently the manager of the premises. One of the officers testified that after he was served the beer the appellant The officer was asked:
On cross-examination the officer was asked:
'
We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the defense of entrapment. While the officers furnished the opportunity for the appellant to participate in the commission of the offense, the evidence shows that the criminal design originated in the mind of the appellant. See Shott v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 791, and cases cited therein.
Next, appellant complains of improper jury argument, contending that the state's attorney 'committed reversible error by commenting to the jury on the fact that the appellant did not testify on his own behalf on the issue of guilt or innocence.'
The complained of argument is as follows:
In the recent case of Hawk v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 183 (1972) this court reversed the conviction where the prosecutor argued: '. . . There was silence out there that night of that arrest because nobody denied . . ..' However, in Hawk, the trial court overruled the objection to the argument. In the case at bar, the court sustained the objection and instucted the jury to disregard such argument. 1 No motion for mistrial was made. Appellant received all the relief he requested. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, the error in the argument, if any, was cured by the court's instruction. 2 See Alvarez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 450; Ellis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 406.
Appellant's contention that 'there was an unexplained break in the chain of custody of certain evidence' is not supported by the record. Instead, the record reflects that: heroin was purchased from appellant by two deputy sheriffs; preliminary examination of the substance purchased by these officers revealed that it was heroin; one of the officers marked...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Romero v. State
...reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 1 See Article 4413(29cc), Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.2 See Haywood v. State, 482 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).3 Cases following the rule announced in the Frye case are numerous. Most are collected at 34 A.L.R. 147, 86 A.L.R. 616, 119......
-
Richardson v. State
...have committed except for such inducement, entrapment exists and may constitute a defense to a criminal offense. See Haywood v. State, 482 S.W.2d 855 (1972). However, where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused, the fact that the officer or his agent furnishes the opport......
-
Cowan v. State
...by the trial court. The appellant received all of the relief he sought. Bourg v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 724; Haywood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 855; Gleffe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 509 S.W.2d 323. There was no request to have the court instruct the jury to disregard the questio......
-
Stearn v. State, 45400
...reversible error: (1) when objections thereto were sustained and the jury instructed to disregard the same, e.g., Haywood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 855; Alexander v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 44; Heartfield v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 895; (2) when no objections were made......