Hunt v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 26248,26248 |
| Citation | 158 Tex.Crim. 618,258 S.W.2d 320 |
| Parties | HUNT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
H. S. Beard, Waco, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was charged with the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, marihuana, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for four years.
There are no bills of exception in the record. However, the facts show that around 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon of June 12, 1952, a witness was in the North Waco Baptist Church in company with her son. They were in the basement of the church fixing a display for the Summer Bible School Commencement Exercises. There were three buildings which constituted this church, and the witness and her son were in the middle building. Appellant came from the back of this middle building and down to the side. He stepped down and began looking in a hole which seemed to be an air vent hole about a foot square. He squatted down there at the opening and began digging in there 'to either get something or put something in there.' In a minute he got up and walked around the front of the building and went in a certain direction. The witness and her son went around and looked in this air vent hole and found nothing. They heard the appellant coming toward them from around the back of the building. They walked away toward the rear at a door. Appellant passed them and said, 'Hello; it is sure hot.' They went back in the building and stopped at a window in the back thereof. They then saw appellant at a lumber pile between the two buildings. He was reaching down under that lumber pile at the south end of it. He stood there temporarily 'either getting something or putting something away' and then came back between those two buildings and went around the front of the church. The witness then heard a car start. She and her son soon walked over to the lumber pile where appellant had stood and found two Prince Albert tobacco cans full of something which did not look like tobacco, nor did it smell like tobacco. They took the cans to the pastor's study, but since he was not there, they returned them to the lumber pile. However, the cans were soon placed in the pastor's study and later turned over to the officers and this prosecution resulted. The witness identified the two cans upon the trial and they were shown by proper testimony to contain marihuana, a narcotic drug.
Appellant had no attorney but represented himself at the trial and rather shrewdly examined the witnesses.
We think the testimony is sufficient to show that the appellant is placed within such close juxtaposition to the narcotic drug as to justify the jury in concluding that the same was in his possession.
The court gave a proper charge to the jury relative to the law of circumstantial evidence, but under the decisions of this court, because of the close relationship between appellant and the facts to be proven, such a charge was really not required. However, the court, out of an abundance of caution, saw fit to incorporate such instruction in his main charge although appellant was not entitled to relief hereunder on account of the fact that he had received more than he was entitled to under the law. See Egbert v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 663, 176 S.W. 560; Hernandez v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 671, 13 S.W.2d 704; Webb v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 230, 8 S.W.2d 165; Richardson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 403, 5 S.W.2d 141; Helton v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 250 S.W. 1030; Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 72 S.W.2d 269.
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.
These further facts found in the record appear to be material.
The witnesses who were in the basement of the middle of the three buildings which constitute the North Waco Baptist Church were Mrs. Harlin W. Mitchell and her 14 year old son Wayne. Their suspicions were aroused because, as Mrs. Mitchell testified, 'I saw you reaching and getting or putting something under there that you had no business doing around a church.'
After appellant left the first hole or air vent Mrs. Mitchell sent her son to see what appellant was doing on the other side of the building. Wayne testified that when he went to the back door of the building appellant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harvey
...same was in his possession.' State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 183 S.E. 680; State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 66 S.E.2d 667; Hunt v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 618, 258 S.W.2d 320; People v. Galloway, 28 Ill.2d 355, 192 N.E.2d In this case the State's evidence placed defendant within three or four feet ......
-
State v. Spencer
...that defendant exercised custody, control, and dominion over the pig shed and its contents. As stated by the Court in Hunt v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 618, 258 S.W.2d 320, defendant has been placed in 'such close juxtaposition to the narcotic drug as to justify the jury in concluding that the s......
-
State v. Brown
...same was in his possession." State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 183 S.E.2d 680; State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 66 S.E.2d 667; Hunt v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 618, 258 S.W.2d 320; People v. Galloway, 28 Ill.2d 355, 192 N.E.2d Id. at 12-13, 187 S.E.2d at 714. Although this case differs from Harvey in ......
-
State v. Alford
...to the narcotic drugs as to justify the jury (trial judge) in concluding that the (drug) was in (the(ir)) possession.' Hunt v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 618, 258 S.W.2d 320. This Court has consistently read Article 778 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to mean that on review of the denial of a d......