McGaskey v. State, 42498
| Decision Date | 11 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42498,42498 |
| Parties | Thomas J. McGASKEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., and Phyllis Bell and Allen Stilley, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, marihuana; the punishment, five years.
The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged.
Officer Arredondo, a witness for the state, testified that he approached the appellant who was alone and sitting under the steering wheel of an automobile and asked him to step out; that on searching the automobile he found in the glove compartment a Prince Albert tobacco can containing a green leafy substance which in his opinion was marihuana, and it was sufficient to make many cigarettes.
Chemist McDonald testified that an analysis of the substance in the tobacco can revealed that it was marihuana, a narcotic drug; and that there were almost seventeen grams of the marihuana which was sufficient to make eighty or ninety cigarettes.
The record reveals that Officer Arredondo received reliable information from a credible person at the scene that the appellant possessed a pistol, and upon a search of the appellant and the car he failed to find a pistol, but found the can containing marihuana. Immediately before the introduction of this testimony, the appellant informed the court that he had no objection thereto; and that possession would become a fact issue for the jury.
The appellant did not testify and only recalled Officer Arredondo as a witness.
The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; the second ground of error is overruled.
The first ground of error is that the trial court permitted the state to develop testimony of the effect marihuana has on the body and whether it is habit-forming.
Chemist McDonald testified that the use of marihuana is habit-forming, acts as a central nervous system depressant, and causes a total obliteration of a person's inhibitions, and at the same time it causes certain types of hallucinations which result in rather bizarre activity.
The motion to strike the last portion of the above testimony was sustained and the jury instructed not to consider it for any purpose.
To the admission of the first portion of said testimony, the appellant objected because he was charged only with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkerson v. State
...human beings was admissible to prove that barbiturates are hypnotic drugs within the meaning of the statute. And in McGaskey v. State, 451 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), a possession of marihuana prosecution, it was held that no reversible error was shown in permitting a chemist to testify t......
-
Humason v. State
...of fact also had some proof suggesting that appellant was aware of that particular controlled substance. See, e.g., McGaskey v. State, 451 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) (listing apparent intoxication of defendant from marihuana as affirmative link); 11 Hughes, supra (mentioning presence of s......
-
Humason v. State, 01-84-0783-CR
...88 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (defendant was sole occupant, but was linked to the car other than at his moment of arrest); McGaskey v. State, 451 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Crim.App.1970) (sole control of parked car when arrested, plus intoxication, held sufficient to link defendant to marijuana in glove com......
-
Gilbert v. State
...one, four, six, seven and eleven); Sanders v. State, 482 S.W.2d 648, 651 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (factor five); McGaskey v. State, 451 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex.Crim.App.1970) (factor ...