Rodriquez v. State, 46036

Decision Date30 May 1973
Docket NumberNo. 46036,46036
PartiesAntonio RODRIQUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Malcolm Dade, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of sale of heroin; punishment was assessed at 20 years' confinement.

Appellant raises two grounds of error; the sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.

Appellant challenges the admissibility of certain reports introduced by the State. Exhibit #3 was a U.S. Treasury Department form which contained a report of the property purchased and how it was obtained. This report was submitted with the evidence to the chemist, and the chemist's report and the resulting analysis are contained therein also.

State's Exhibit #2 was the lock-sealing envelope which the evidence was placed in and delivered to the chemist.

Defense counsel objected to these exhibits as containing extraneous matters and amounting to bolstering and hearsay. The State cites the business records statute as authority for introducing such evidence. Article 3737e, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.

We have only recently addressed this problem. In Commissioner Dally's opinion in Coulter v. State, 494 S.W.2d 876 (1973), the cause was reversed because of State's Exhibit #2. The same inadmissible references contained in that exhibit are present in the instant case, in State's Exhibit #3. No further discussion is necessary.

In light of our disposition of this ground, we need not consider appellant's remaining ground.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Nelson v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 17, 1981
    ...recent state decisions handed down after Nelson's conviction, Coulter v. State, 494 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973) and Rodriquez v. State, 494 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973). 2 After completing all avenues of available state remedies, Nelson sought federal habeas in March 1977, arguing that (......
  • Battee v. State, 50850
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 28, 1976
    ...defect inasmuch as there does not appear to have been any attempt to lay a predicate for it under the act.2 See also Rodriquez v. State, 494 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and Nelson v. State, 507 S.W.2d 565 ...
  • Nelson v. State, s. 48130
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 13, 1974
    ...which had been prepared by a narcotics agent, was admitted in evidence over an objection that it was hearsay. See also Rodriquez v. State, 494 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); United States v. Brown, 451 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Adams, 385 F.2d 548 (2nd Cir. 1967); Sanchez v......
  • Kistler v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 28, 1979
    ...of the United States Court of Appeals for four circuits. See Coulter v. State, 494 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Rodriquez v. State, 494 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Nelson v. State, 543 S.W.2d 91 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); Sisson v. State, 561 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); United States v. Br......
  • 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