Meadowes v. State, 35789
| Decision Date | 15 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 35789,35789 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 203 |
| Parties | Darvis Monroe MEADOWES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Aynesworth & Mann, by Kenneth H. Aynesworth, Jr., King C. Haynie (on appeal only), Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Gus J. Zgourides and Gene D. Miles, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is under Art. 726d, V.A.P.C., for the unlawful possession of amphetamine; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $1,000.
Officer J. J. Strickland of the Houston police department, narcotics division, testified that on the day in question he drove to the 4300-block of Washington Avenue in company with his partner, Officer Jack Farrar, and a man by the name of James Frost. When they stopped, Frost got out of the car and went to a telephone booth in which appellant was standing. After the two engaged in a conversation, Frost returned to the car with appellant. When appellant got in the car and was introduced to Officers Strickland and Farrar, he asked: Strickland replied: "I got the money but I am going to have to see the bennies first." Strickland and appellant then went to the telephone booth, where the latter reached in, got a paper sack, and handed it to Strickland, saying "Here they are." They then returned to the car, at which time Officer Strickland signalled to certain officers who had them under surveillance and who came to the car and placed appellant under arrest.
Officer Strickland then drove two blocks to Thompson Street and stopped beside a Cadillac automobile belonging to appellant. Appellant, at such time, opened the trunk of the Cadillac and removed a suitcase which was found to contain four plastic bags containing some pills. The brown sack and its contents, which appellant handed to Officer Strickland, together with the four plastic bags taken from the suitcase, were delivered to the city chemist for examination.
An examination and analysis by the chemist disclosed that the sack contained 20,300 five-milligram amphetamine tablets and the four plastic bags contained 500 eight-milligram and 2,700 ten-milligram amphetamine tablets.
his arrest, appellant was taken to the police department, where he made and signed a written confession to Officer Strickland in which he admitted his possession of the amphetamine tablets. The statement was introduced in evidence by the state.
Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant stated that on the occasion in question he was to deliver a package for his friend, R. L. Strickland, and be paid $10 for the delivery. Appellant testified that it was Strickland who placed the package in the telephone booth and that it was Officer J. J. Strickland who removed it from the booth. Appellant denied any knowledge of the four packages in the trunk of his car, stating that he did not know what was in the packages but that he was told they contained 'Slim Time' pills, which were pills used for reducing and to stay awake.
Appellant also repudiated his confession and testified that he was not given the statutory warning by Officer Strickland or by anyone else. He also swore that he gave the confession because of pain he was suffering from a stomach ulcer, which he stated was aggravated by a police officer striking him in the stomach at the scene of the arrest.
Appellant's testimony with reference to mistreatment by the officer was controverted by Officer Scholl, upon his being called by the state in rebuttal. Officer Strickland also testified that he gave appellant the legal warning before he made and signed the statement introduced in evidence.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and shall discuss the contentions urged by appellant as grounds for the reversal of the judgment of conviction.
Appellant first contends, as was urged in his motion to quash, that the information is fatally defective because it failed to allege that the amphetamine was not a preparation for use in the nose and unfit for internal use.
The information charged that appellant did 'unlawfully possess a dangerous drug, to-wit, amphetamine * * *.'
Art. 726d, Sec. 2(a), V.A.P.C., in defining the term "dangerous drug," includes, among other drugs or preparations, the following:
'(2) Amphetamine, desoxyephedrine, or compounds or mixtures thereof, except preparations for use in the nose and unfit for internal use.'
Sec. 12 of Art. 726d, supra, provides:
'In any complaint, information, or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provisions of this Act, it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption contained in this Act, and the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption shall be upon the defendant.'
In Browning v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 273, 276, 276 S.W.2d 522, we held that under a similar provision of Art. 726c, V.A.P.C. (now repealed) it was unnecessary to negative certain exceptions in the statute in charging the offense of unlawful delivery of barbiturates. See, also, McKnight v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 472, 278 S.W.2d 150, and King v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 312 S.W.2d 501.
Under the provisions of Sec. 2(a)(2) of the present statute, amphetamine is, as hereinabove shown, a dangerous drug, the possession of which is made unlawful under Sec. 3(d) unless obtained under certain other specific provisions of the act.
We are unable to agree that the exception in the statute with reference to preparations for use in the nose and unfit for internal use is a necessary part of the definition of the offense or descriptive thereof or essential to its definition so as to require that it be negatived in charging the offense.
The court instructed the jury in his charge that amphetamine is a dangerous drug and that, under the statute, when a dangerous drug is illegally possessed by a person he will be punished, as provided therein.
The court then instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did on the date alleged 'unlawfully possess amphetamine' to find him guilty. The jury was further instructed that if it found from the evidence or had a reasonable doubt thereof, that appellant received the amphetamine from another person and did not know the contents of the containers, to acquit him.
Appellant urges error in the charge because it did not define the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...to contradict Robbins v. State, 481 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Cook v. State, 409 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), and Meadowes v. State, 368 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Cr.App.1963), all of which held that objection to improper evidence of an extraneous offense was waived when the defendant on direct ......
-
Dowling v. State
...it failed to allege that amphetamine was not a preparation for use in the nose and unfit for internal use. Meadowes v. State (Cr.App.1963) 368 S.W.2d 203. Where drug methaqualone was not named as dangerous drug under then statute, nor did indictment allege any facts showing why methaqualone......
-
Denison v. State
...Parks v. State, 400 S.W.2d 769 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Jones v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 220 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Cr.App.1949); Meadowes v. State, 368 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). The judgment is affirmed. TOM G. DAVIS, J., concurs in result. MILLER, J., dissents. ODOM, Judge, dissenting. I dissent......
-
Lugo v. State, 13-86-246-CR
...to the omission of a definition of insanity. See generally, Mosley v. State, 686 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Meadowes v. State, 368 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Crim.App.1963); Davis v. State, 690 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1985, pet. ref'd); Mouton v. State, 627 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.App.--Houston [1s......