Rodriguez v. State, 27835
| Decision Date | 04 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 27835,27835 |
| Citation | 285 S.W.2d 757,162 Tex.Crim. 332 |
| Parties | Francisco F. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roy A. Scott, Noe C. Garza, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the possession of marihuana; the punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.
According to the testimony of the state's witness, Rudolfo Rodriguez (no relation of appellant), appellant agreed to supply 50 pounds of marihuana to complete a sale which Rudolfo Rodriguez had arranged with a Negro customer for $1,800, and Rudolfo was to receive $100 for his services as an interpreter because appellant could not speak English. When appellant had acquired the 50 pounds of marihuana he notified Rudolfo Rodriguez, who arranged for it's delivery and payment with the negro customer. Appellant, with three boxes of marihuana in his truck, met Rudolfo Rodriguez and they went together to the pre-arranged place at the agreed time to consummate the sale.
The officers were secreted around the agreed place of delivery and saw the Negro stop his car. When appellant and Rudolfo Rodriguez arrived in the truck, Rudolfo Rodriguez contacted the Negro who told him that he had the money and was ready for the delivery, and as Rudolfo Rodriguez was carrying one of the boxes of marihuana from the truck to the Negro's car, the officers appeared, the Negro sped away, appellant and Rudolfo Rodriguez were arrested and 50 pounds of marihuana was found in the box Rudolfo Rodriguez was carrying and in the two boxes in the truck.
It was properly shown that the boxes in question contained marihuana.
Appellant, while testifying in his own behalf, stated that he stopped at Rudolfo Rodriguez's place of business, and that as he was leaving Rudolfo Rodriguez asked him to help move some things for him to his brother's house which he agreed to do; that appellant placed the articles on his truck, among which were some boxes, and then accompanied him and directed the way to the house where they were arrested while he was seated in the truck and Rudolfo Rodriguez was removing the boxes; and that he never looked into the boxes and did not know that they contained marihuana.
There are no objections to the charge, but appellant complains of the refusal of his requested charges numbers two and three which present the sole questions for review on this appeal.
These requested charges presented appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. State, 31401
...consider the same in determining the intent of the appellant and for no other purpose. Art. 659, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Rodriguez v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 332, 285 S.W.2d 757; Barefield v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 309 S.W.2d 451. The objection to the charge was overruled and the special charge was ......
- Munoz v. State
-
Goldman v. State
...of knowledge on his part, and in the event the jury so believes. Sosa v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 193, 275 S.W.2d 655; Rodriguez v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 332, 285 S.W.2d 757. 3 Branch's Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 1423.5, p. Failure to give the defensive instruction in Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App.......
-
Clepper v. State, 28552
...out the error in the main charge as to the burden of proof on the law of self-defense. Art. 659, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 285 S.W.2d 757. The objection to the charge was overruled and the special charge was refused and to such rulings of the court the appellant ......