Reyes v. State, No. 44902

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtODOM
Citation480 S.W.2d 373
Docket NumberNo. 44902
Decision Date24 May 1972
PartiesArturo Andrade REYES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Page 373

480 S.W.2d 373
Arturo Andrade REYES, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 44902.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 24, 1972.

Robert H. Tippins, San Antonio (On Appeal Only), for appellant.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Arthur Estefan and Antonio G. Cantu, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of unlawful sale of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin. Punishment was assessed by the court at ten years.

Officer H. Rangel, of the San Antonio Police Department, testified that he first met appellant in March of 1970, at 143 Henry Street, a location in San Antonio known by the officer as a 'narcotic connection'. He knew appellant as Arturo Ortiz.

On July 15, 1970, at approximately 7:30 P.M., Officer Rangel purchased heroin from appellant in front of Poncho's Grill on the corner of 21st and Commerce Streets, in San Antonio. The officer paid appellant $3.50 for the heroin.

Officer Rangel testified that after the purchase in question he drove around until approximately 10:30 P.M. when he met his field supervisors, Detectives Harry Carpenter and Manuel Ortiz. The three then performed a field test on the contraband. The test revealed that it was some kind of heroin or opium derivative. Harry Carpenter mailed the contraband to the Department of Public Safety by certified mail. The package was received by George Taft who is a Chemist for the Department of Public Safety. Taft testified that he made spot tests of the contents which showed to be heroin.

Appellant contends: (1) that the trial court erred in not submitting to the jury a charge requested by him which included a definition of 'a quantity of narcotic drug' as 'a determinate or measurable amount'; and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict because the state did not prove what percentage of the substance sold was composed of heroin.

In Greer v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 292 S.W.2d 122, this court held that a trace of a narcotic, '. . . such as may have been wiped from a needle following an injection . . .,' which had been extracted from a small piece of wet cotton, was an insufficient amount to support a conviction for unlawful possession of heroin.

In Pelham v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 298 S.W.2d 171, the reasoning behind the decision in the Greer case was discussed, the court stating that:

'It would be a harsh rule,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • King v. State, No. 900-93
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • March 29, 1995
    ...in the indictment were Page 708 true and correct. Id. Similar reasoning was applied in the sale and delivery context. In Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373, 374-75 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), we held that where the defendant represented that he was selling narcotics and the substance he was selling wa......
  • Lejeune v. State, No. 49404
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • July 14, 1976
    ...also and cf. Taylor v. State, 505 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Terrill v. State, 531 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). In Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the court held that the court- Page 778 imposed minimum quantity requirement of Pelham did not apply to cases where the ac......
  • Joseph v. State, No. 011-94
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • April 19, 1995
    ...But an exception to this rule exists when other evidence demonstrates the defendant knowingly possessed the substance. Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); and, Daniels, 574 S.W.2d at 128-129. In these cases the rule ... When the quantity of a substance possessed is so sma......
  • Powell v. State, No. 46209
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 3, 1973
    ...State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 42, 296 S.W.2d 548 (1956) with Pelham v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 298 S.W.2d 171 (1957). See also Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373 By his second ground of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress for the reason that no pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • King v. State, No. 900-93
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • March 29, 1995
    ...in the indictment were Page 708 true and correct. Id. Similar reasoning was applied in the sale and delivery context. In Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373, 374-75 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), we held that where the defendant represented that he was selling narcotics and the substance he was selling wa......
  • Lejeune v. State, No. 49404
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • July 14, 1976
    ...also and cf. Taylor v. State, 505 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Terrill v. State, 531 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). In Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the court held that the court- Page 778 imposed minimum quantity requirement of Pelham did not apply to cases where the ac......
  • Joseph v. State, No. 011-94
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • April 19, 1995
    ...But an exception to this rule exists when other evidence demonstrates the defendant knowingly possessed the substance. Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); and, Daniels, 574 S.W.2d at 128-129. In these cases the rule ... When the quantity of a substance possessed is so sma......
  • Powell v. State, No. 46209
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 3, 1973
    ...State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 42, 296 S.W.2d 548 (1956) with Pelham v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 298 S.W.2d 171 (1957). See also Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373 By his second ground of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress for the reason that no pro......
  • 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