Henderson v. State

• Citation: 172 Tex.Crim. 75,353 S.W.2d 226
• Decision Date: 03 January 1962
• Docket Number: No. 34061,34061
• Parties: Louis Patrick HENDERSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Page 226

353 S.W.2d 226

172 Tex.Crim. 75

Louis Patrick HENDERSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 34061.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1962.

[172 TEXCRIM 75] M. Gabriel Nahas, Jr., Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Daniel P. Ryan, Jr., Assts. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

[172 TEXCRIM 76] The conviction is for the unlawful possession of narcotic paraphernalia; the punishment, 5 years.

Officer A. J. Geffert of the Houston Police Department, Narcotics Division, testified that on the day in question, he had a conversation with appellant, who at such time was incarcerated in jail; that in the conversation, appellant told him that if he would go to a motel at 4012 Airline, cabin No. 1 where appellant lived, 'I would find the rest of the pills and narcotics that he had at that location'; that with appellant's consent he went to the address and searched the cabin; that in the search he found a hypodermic needle and eyedropper under the sink in the bathroom and four bottles containing an assortment of pills and capsules in a suitcase.

Officer C. L. Burton, upon being called as a witness, corroborated Officer Geffert's testimony relative to the search of the cabin and finding the needle, eyedropper and bottles of pills and capsules.

The evidence shows that the needle, eyedropper and the four bottles of pills and capsules were delivered by Officer Geffert to Chemist and Toxicologist Thomas L. Metz of the Houston Police Department. Chemist Metz testified that the needle was used for subcutaneous injections and the eyedropper was also adapted for such use into a human being. Chemist Metz further testified that he ran a quantitative analysis on the needle and eyedropper which revealed that they contained .715 milligrams of morphine, a narcotic drug and that a quantitative analysis run upon the pills and capsules revealed that some contained a derivative barbituric acid and some contained amphetamine.

Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.

Appellant insists that the court erred in permitting Officer Geffert to relate the conversation which he had with appellant concerning the location of the narcotic paraphernalia because it was in the nature of a confession which was not in writing and did not otherwise comply with Art. 727, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.

Appellant's oral statement to Officer Geffert that he had the narcotics in his cabin which led to the officers finding the narcotic paraphernalia therein was admissible as an oral confession under the exception contained in Art. 727, supra, which reads, '* * * or, unless in connection with said confession he makes statements of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, [172 TEXCRIM 77] which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property, or the instrument with which he states the offense was committed. * * *' Glaze v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 310 S.W.2d 88; Sikes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 334 S.W.2d 440 and Graves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 336 S.W.2d 156. W...