Murphy v. State, 36581
| Decision Date | 22 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36581,36581 |
| Citation | 378 S.W.2d 73 |
| Parties | Patricia Ann MURPHY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, James C. Brough and Frank Puckett, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Our prior opinions are withdrawn.
The offense is the unlawful possession of a dangerous drug; the punishment, ninety days in jail.
Trial was before the court on a plea of not guilty.
The state offered evidence to the effect that upon a search of appellant's purse, at the police station, two capsules in a small plastic container were found.
The capsules were offered in evidence. Chemist Floyd McDonald testified that the red capsule contained secobarbital and the blue and red capsule contained a mixture of amobarbital and secobarbital, a derivative of barbituric acid.
The state's evidence was admitted over objection that it was obtained as the result of an illegal arrest and search.
The appellant was a passenger in an automobile which was pursued and stopped because of a traffic law violation. The arresting officer testified that the appellant was sitting in the car with her purse open in her hand and lap; that he asked her a question and she did not respond and:
The state argues that the arrest of the appellant without a warrant was lawful under the holding of this Court in Cook v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 238 S.W.2d 200, and King v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 312 S.W.2d 501, to the effect that one found drunk in a public place may be arrested without warrant.
Reliance is had upon the testimony of the arresting officer that he formed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated. Assuming without deciding that there were sufficient facts and circumstances to support it, the officer's opinion was based in part upon the way the appellant walked while being 'guided to the patrol unit,' after she had been pulled from the car; her purse taken from her and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969); Gatlin v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 326 F.2d 666 (1963); Murphy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 73; Gonzales v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 95 S.W.2d 972. For '(i)f subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the F......
-
Lewis v. State
...Ceniceros v. State, 551 S.W.2d 50, 52-54, 55 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), or sitting as a passenger in an automobile in Houston, Murphy v. State, 378 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). Yet here appellant was thoroughly stripped of her privacy "solely on the authority of the police," without the slighte......
-
Wood v. State
...4 was justified, and whether the search incident to such arrest or arrests was valid. Appellant relies heavily upon Murphy v. State, 378 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). Murphy is distinguishable on its facts. There, the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle which had been stopped as a result ......
-
Duff v. State
...passenger.' In support of this contention, appellant relies on Willett v. State, 454 S.W.2d 398 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and Murphy v. State, 378 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). Neither case is directly applicable to the instant In Willett, the officer pulled in behind the defendant's vehicle after i......