Hilliard v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 32534,32534 |
| Citation | 340 S.W.2d 494,170 Tex.Crim. 290 |
| Parties | Loice Dennis HILLIARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mauro Rosas, El Paso, for appellant.
William E. Clayton, Dist. Atty., Edwin F. Berliner, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph H. Sharpley, Oscar G. Galvan, Asst. Dist. Attys., El Paso, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the possession of marihuana; the punishment, four years.
When Immigration Officer Blakeney asked the appellant about his citizenship and also what he had in his hand, the appellant made no reply but suddenly ran as Blakeney grabbed for him and Officers DeBruhr and McCleary soon apprehended him. Officer Blakeney testified that appellant had something clutched in the cup of his left hand which was protruding from each side; and after running a short distance, the appellant stopped and appeared to drop something while shaking a handkerchief.
Officer DeBruhr, McCleary, and Shaw testified they saw the appellant run a short distance, stop, and begin shaking a handkerchief causing something to fall to the ground which was shown to be six cigarettes which Officer DeBruhr picked up.
On cross-examination, Officer Shaw testified that the appellant told him and Officer DeBruhr that:
The testimony shows that the appellant had two companions who had immediately preceded him as they passed through Customs from Mexico.
Proof was offered that each of the six cigarettes contained marihuana.
The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of the cigarettes into evidence over his objection that there was no chain of evidence showing that the six cigarettes picked up at the scene of appellant's arrest were the same cigarettes as those introduced in evidence.
He urges that there was a break in the chain of custody when Officer DeBruhr handed the cigarettes to Officer McCleary so he could telephone the police because Officer McCleary was not called to testify that the cigarettes he returned to DeBruhr were the same DeBruhr gave him when he left to use the telephone. Officer DeBruhr testified that he and Officer McCleary had taken appellant inside the Customs building where he gave McCleary the cigarettes and he had them in his hand standing there with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stafford v. State
...of the witnesses lies in the exclusive domain of the trier of fact (in the instant case, the jury). Hilliard v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 290, 340 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1961). In short, Reeves' testimony, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is sufficient to support the jur......
- Gill v. State
-
Barrera v. State, 45739
...accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 395; Hilliard v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 290, 340 S.W.2d 494; Barry v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 204, 305 S.W.2d 580, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 851, 78 S.Ct. 71, 2 L.Ed.2d Next, appellant ar......
-
Stunson v. State
...permit it into evidence. State v. Robinson, 203 Kan. 304, 454 P.2d 527; Oliver v. State, S.Ct.Nev. 1969, 449 P.2d 252; Hilliard v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 290, 340 S.W.2d 494. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, a review of the record reveals substantial competent evidence which, together w......