Parson v. State, No. 41350

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtDICE
Citation432 S.W.2d 89
PartiesRex Eugene PARSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 41350
Decision Date16 September 1968

Page 89

432 S.W.2d 89
Rex Eugene PARSON, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 41350.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Sept. 16, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1968.

Maloney, Milner & McDowell, by Pat McDowell, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Douglas Mulder, Joe M. Hendley, Kerr P. FitzGerald, Camille Elliott, and Malcolm Dade, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DICE, Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: marihuana; the punishment, fifty years.

It was shown by the state's testimony that on the day in question Officer Green, of the Dallas police department, placed a certain residence in the city under surveillance.

Page 91

The officer observed a 1959 Chevrolet automobile parked in front of the residence and ascertained that it bore a license plate which was issued to Hertz-Rent-A-Car for a 1966 Plymouth. The following day he returned to the address with Officer Zapata and they observed the automobile, bearing the same license plate, parked in front of the residence. They proceeded past the car and, as they were driving around the block, met the vehicle being driven by appellant. They then pulled to the middle of the road and attempted to stop appellant with their red lights. Thereupon, appellant stopped his vehicle, dropped himself down to the floorboard, put the vehicle in reverse, and started backing up. After the vehicle jumped the curb, ran across some lawns, and hit some trees, appellant got out and ran. The officers gave chase and which in pursuit they observed appellant throw vial, a 'prescription bottle,' in a flowerbed. Officer Zapata retrieved the bottle while Officer Green caught appellant.

Following his arrest, appellant was searched and also the car which he had been driving. In the search, some sweepings were taken from the floorboard of the car. The vial thrown by appellant and sweepings taken from the car were identified by the officers at the trial as state's exhibits 2--A and 2--C, which they put in an envelope and placed in a locked box of the crime scene search section at the city hall following appellant's arrest.

It was shown by the testimony of Dr. Morton F. Mason, director of the Dallas City County Criminal Investigation Laboratory, that a scientific analysis of the material contained in the two exhibits showed that the vial (state's exhibit 2--A) contained 1.41 grams of marihuana and the scrapings taken from the car (state's exhibit 2--C) contained 'a very small amount of marihuana.' Dr. Mason testified that the total weight of the material in state's exhibit 2--C was 1.112 grams, of which a small portion could be positively identified as marihuana.

Testifying in his own behalf, appellant swore that he thought the car he was driving belonged to his girl friend and denied having any knowledge about marihuana or having thrown any away on the occasion in question.

On cross-examination, appellant admitted having been three times convicted of forgery, twice for burglary, once for attempted burglary, once for murder with an automobile, and also for violation of the federal postal laws.

We first overrule appellant's contention (grounds of error five and six) that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to show that the material recovered was marihuana in an amount sufficient to constitute an offense or that it was in fact a narcotic drug.

The state's proof that the vial contained 1.41 grams of marihuana was sufficient to show an offense. Tuttle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 S.W.2d 780.

Dr. Mason testified that marihuana is a narcotic drug. It is so defined by statute: Art. 725b, Secs. 13 and 14, P.C. Gonzales v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 432, 293 S.W.2d 786;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Lejeune v. State, No. 49404
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • July 14, 1976
    ...Under this test a number of convictions were upheld where only small amounts of marihuana were involved, e.g., Parson v. State, 432 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) (1.41 grams of marihuana); Tuttle v. State, 410 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1966) (63 milligrams of marihuana); Mitchell v. State, 482 S......
  • Courtney v. State, No. 44042
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 6, 1971
    ...a speedy trial. McKenzie v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 67; Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 180; Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 89. In the present case the appellant was silent about his right of a speedy trial until July of 1967, a period of three years and five months......
  • Griggs v. State, No. 42593
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 18, 1970
    ...being within the limits authorized by statute, was upheld. And in Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 89, a jury's verdict of 50 years' imprisonment for unlawful possession of narcotics was held not excessive nor cruel and unusual punishment, pa......
  • Hernandez v. State, No. 51952
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • July 7, 1976
    ...S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), where the evidence showed a matchbox containing a mere 1.48 grams of marihuana. See also Parson v. State, 432 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). This contention is The judgment is affirmed. Page 132 ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS, J., dissent. Opinion approved by the Court. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Lejeune v. State, No. 49404
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • July 14, 1976
    ...Under this test a number of convictions were upheld where only small amounts of marihuana were involved, e.g., Parson v. State, 432 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) (1.41 grams of marihuana); Tuttle v. State, 410 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1966) (63 milligrams of marihuana); Mitchell v. State, 482 S......
  • Courtney v. State, No. 44042
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 6, 1971
    ...a speedy trial. McKenzie v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 67; Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 180; Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 89. In the present case the appellant was silent about his right of a speedy trial until July of 1967, a period of three years and five months......
  • Griggs v. State, No. 42593
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 18, 1970
    ...being within the limits authorized by statute, was upheld. And in Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 89, a jury's verdict of 50 years' imprisonment for unlawful possession of narcotics was held not excessive nor cruel and unusual punishment, pa......
  • Hernandez v. State, No. 51952
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • July 7, 1976
    ...S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), where the evidence showed a matchbox containing a mere 1.48 grams of marihuana. See also Parson v. State, 432 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). This contention is The judgment is affirmed. Page 132 ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS, J., dissent. Opinion approved by the Court. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT