Moon v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43562,43562 |
| Citation | 465 S.W.2d 172 |
| Parties | Henry MOON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John W. Overton, Houston. Court appointed on appeal, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Frank Price, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction for unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, towit: marijuana. The jury found that appellant had previously been convicted of an offense of like character and of the same nature, and assessed his punishment at 20 years.
By his first ground of error appellant contends he was prejudiced and denied a fair trial when the trial court continued to question the attorney for the state about a question he asked which elicited the answer that marijuana was a 'stepping stone to taking heroin.'
The record reflects that the State's attorney was questioning Peter Christian, Jr., a chemist and toxicologist with the Houston Police Department, when the following occurred:
Appellant did not request the court to instruct the jury to disregard the questions, nor did he move for a mistrial. He was granted all the relief asked for when objections were sustained. Jenkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 435 S.W.2d 505; Drake v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 184; Bradley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 863. It is clear that the court did not understand the incomplete question when objection was made. Byrd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 915. No error is shown.
Next, appellant contends the court erred by permitting witness Christian to give an opinion calculated to inflame the minds of the jurors when asked: 'And what can become of a person who becomes addicted to marijuana?'
Regarding this contention, the record reveals:
'Q. I believe you stated that regardless of what report Mr. Blaine is talking about, all the study that you have done, all of the different books, pamphlets, medical books, et cetera, indicates that marijuana is addictive, is that correct?
'A. That is correct.
'Q. And what can become of a person who becomes addicted to marijuana?
(Whereupon attorneys for both sides approached the Bench and had a conversation out of the hearing of the jury and this reporter.)
'Q. (By Mr. Price) Mr. Christian, what does become of a person who becomes addicted to marijuana?
'A. As to why a person becomes addicted, I don't know.
'Q. What does become of him after he becomes addicted to marijuana?
'A. He tends to want more and more and looking for the effect that marijuana does give him and very possibly can go on to heroin or morphine, still looking for the same thing.
'MR. PRICE: Pass the witness.
'RECROSS EXAMINATION By Mr. Blaine
'Q. Mr. Christian, that is just as true as the fact that I smoke a Salem cigarette, is it not?
'A. Well, sir, to go on heroin you don't have to smoke marijuana. You're quite right. You can go directly to heroin right now.
'Q. Right. If I were to smoke marijuana, it doesn't mean that I would go on to use heroin?
'A. That is correct.
'Q. Right. In fact, really, the effects of the two different drugs are quite different upon a person?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Marijuana--heroin, we recognize as being what we call a hard narcotic? Isn't that true?
'A. Commonly referred to as 'the hard stuff.'
'Q. Correct.
And they don't refer to marijuana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkins v. State
...and where no request for mistrial was made, there was no error. Appellant received all the relief which he requested. Moon v. State, 465 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Jenkins v. State, 435 S.W.2d 505 Also, the refusal to grant appellant's motion for mistrial was not error. It has long bee......
-
Brown v. State
...sustained. No further relief was requested. We perceive no error. Appellant was given all the relief which he requested. Moon v. State, 465 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jenkins v. State, 435 S.W.2d 505 Appellant contends in his sixth ground of error that the trial court erred in admitting ......
-
Rodgers v. State
...was sustained, no further relief was requested and no abverse ruling was secured, therefore, no error is shown. Moon v. State, 465 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Goad v. State, 464 S.W.2d 129 The sixth ground of error is that 'The trial court allowed the prosecution to argue as follows: 'I g......
-
Wortham v. State
...made no objections so error, if any, was waived. Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190, 205 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Moon v. State, 465 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). This point of error is The Appellant has one further point which we have considered and find to be without merit. It is over......