Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43903,43903 |
| Citation | 469 S.W.2d 180 |
| Parties | John Arthur MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John M. Anderson, Fort Worth (on appeal only), for appellant.
Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., Jack Ball, Roger Crampton and John Garrett Hill, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is possession of heroin; the punishment, twenty-five (25) years.
In this bifurcated trial, appellant plead guilty before a jury. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce evidence of extraneous offenses.
Pursuant to a valid search warrant, Fort Worth narcotics officers entered appellant's apartment. In the apartment they found a small packet of heroin, a small green balloon containing heroin, three barbiturate capsules, and two hand-rolled cigarettes. At the trial appellant stipulated that the packet and balloon contained heroin and that they were in his possession at his apartment. He objected to the admission of the barbiturate and the cigarettes. The State was allowed to introduce the barbiturate into evidence and to identify them as such. After much discussion in front of the jury regarding the hand-rolled cigarettes, which were exhibited to the jury, the trial court sustained appellant's objection to their admission into evidence and refused to allow the chemist to tell what they contained.
The State's attorney, in his final argument, said: 'The only evidence in this case shows that this man did in fact possess marihuana.' No objection was made to this argument.
In a prosecution for possession of illegal drugs or narcotics, other illegal drugs or narcotics found at the same time and place are admissible, as they are part of the res gestae of the offense. Beeler v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,374 S.W.2d 237, cert. denied; 379 U.S. 847, 85 S.Ct. 88, 13 L.Ed.2d 51. This rule applies even when the appellant pleads guilty. Compare Asay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 903 and Salinas v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 309, 254 S.W. 974. As was said in Asay, supra:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnott v. State
...to infer that the appellants were heroin suppliers and dealers, thus prejudicing the jury.' The Court quoted from Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 469 S.W.2d 180, 181: 'In a prosecution for possession of illegal drugs or narcotics, other illegal drugs or narcotics found at the same time and pl......
-
Blackburn v. State, 10-90-135-CR
...574 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Downey v. State, 505 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Miller v. State, 469 S.W.2d 180, 181 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Garcia v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 328, 340 S.W.2d 803, 804 (1960). The evidence is admissible to show the context of the off......
-
Martin v. State
...Beeler v. State, 374 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert denied, 379 U.S. 847, 85 S.Ct. 88, 13 L.Ed.2d 51 (1964), and Miller v. State, 469 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App.1971), as authority that the money was admissible because it was found in the same place as the methamphetamine. However, these ca......
-
Brantley v. State
...accused is charged with the possession, sale or use of drugs. Other states have considered the question, however. In Miller v. State, 469 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), the court held that three barbiturate capsules and two handrolled cigarettes, plus a packet and balloon containing heroin, ......