Rose v. State, 29213
| Decision Date | 06 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29213,29213 |
| Parties | Gilbert Dean ROSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
H. J. Bernard, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Erwin G. Ernst, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the possession of marijuana; the punishment, 10 years.
Officer Whatley testified that on the night in question he arrived at a designated address in the city of Houston and there found the appellant seated in a police automobile, that the appellant called him over to where he was seated, asked to talk to the witness in private, and when the witness assented the appellant told him Officer Whatley testified that following this he entered the appellant's home, followed the appellant's instructions and retrieved the suitcase, the existence of which had been unknown to him prior to his conversation with the appellant and which was shown to contain marijuana.
There was other evidence which was admissible but which we will not consider because of the trial court's ruling on an objection thereto.
[165 TEXCRIM 479] The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.
Appellant first contends that Whatley's testimony was inadmissible because he was not armed with a search warrant, because the appellant was under arrest, and because the testimony of the other officers, the objection to which had been sustained by the trial court, established the fact that they had already found other marijuana behind the kitchen door.
We think the record is clear that none of the officers knew anything about the marijuana in the attic until the appellant told Whatley where it might be found and invited him to enter the home and look for it, and that Whatley's testimony became clearly admissible by virtue of the operation of Article 727, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. See Kindle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 285 S.W.2d 740.
We pass on to a discussion of appellant's bill of exception to argument. The suitcase was identified at the trial by both Officers Whatley and Jernigan as being the same bag which they had gotten from the attic. There was no issue raised by the testimony as to its identity. In the course of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dotson v. State, 02-12-00110-CR
...Officer Dibley retrieve his medications from his bedroom, Appellant expressly gave consent for her to do so. See Rose v. State, 308 S.W.2d 52, 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957) (holding seizure of marihuana from suitcase valid when suitcase was unknown to officers and defendant informed officers wh......
-
Gibson v. State
...me and I will show you where the stolen property may be found.' In such a case, the property so recovered is admissible. Rose v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 478, 308 S.W.2d 52, and Kindle v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 285 S.W.2d 740. See also Douthit v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d Appellant's la......
-
Coronado v. State, 30107
...information given him by the appellant. No error is shown in the admission of the testimony. Art. 727, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Rose v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 308 S.W.2d 52. The unexplained possession of some of the property recently stolen from a burglarized building is sufficient to support a co......