Saddler v. State, 30329
| Decision Date | 28 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 30329,30329 |
| Parties | Carl SADDLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. B. Bunkley, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Joe Joiner, John Mead and Merle Flagg, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for unlawfully selling marijuana; the punishment, 15 years.
appellant was tried separately upon an indictment which charged that one Charles Brackins and appellant, acting together, did unlawfully sell to Clarence Freeman a narcotic drug, to wit: marijuana.
Clarence Freeman, a member of the police department of the City of Dallas, testified that on the night in question he went to a club known as the Melissa Joy to investigate and see if the appellant was selling marijuana; that he first talked to Charles Brackins and while they were talking the appellant drove up in an automobile; that he asked appellant if he knew where he could find some marijuana, that he wanted two or three cigarettes and appellant said 'he only sold in $10.00 stashes'; that he then informed appellant he could buy a $5 stash and appellant told him to wait in the club, that 'he would be gone about five or ten mintues, that he would go and see'; that later the appellant and Brackins came out of an alley together, and the appellant walked past him and went into the club; that Brackins then came up and told him that appellant wanted him to show the witness Freeman where the marijuana was because 'he was afraid I was the heat'; that he then went into the alley with Brackins where Brackins showed him a package which he picked up and put in his pocket; that he then gave Brackins $10 and they went to a liquor store and got change and then to a grill where in about 10 minutes appellant came in and Brackins gave him some money.
It was shown that the package which Officer Freeman picked up in the alley contained 31 grains of marijuana.
Charles Brackins testified that on the occasion in question while he was talking to Officer Freeman the appellant came up and had a conversation with the officer; that appellant then came to him and inquired if the officer had asked him for anything, and he told appellant 'no'; that appellant then told him that Freeman had asked him for some weed and that he had told him he didn't have any; 'that he didn't know anything about him or if he had used it before'; that appellant asked him if he knew Freeman and he told him 'pretty well' and appellant said 'Well if you think he is alright you can deal with him'; that he then went to Freeman and asked him if he had asked appellant for anything and Freeman said that he has and appellant had told him he wasn't going to fool with him because 'you might be the man'; that he then told Freeman 'if you want it that bad, I will show you where it is, it isn't mine, but I will show you where it is'; that he and appellant walked around the corner and appellant came back with a package and said 'here it is'; and he told appellant 'if you will put it somewhere I will go get Freeman and bring him where it is'; that they then went into the alley where appellant put the package down and he (Brackins) then brought Freeman to the alley where he picked up the package; that Freeman then gave him $5 for the marijuana and after he had spent fifty cents of the $5 for beer he gave the remaining $4.50 to the appellant.
As a witness in his own behalf appellant admitted having a conversation with Officer Freeman on the night in question about narcotics but denied having had any transaction or delivering any narcotics to him. Appellant admitted that Brackins gave him $4.45 on the night in question but testified that it was a payment on a debt which Brackins owed him.
Appellant insists that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction because there was no evidence in the record showing that he, acting together with Charles Brackins, sold the marijuana to Officer Freeman.
The court, in his charge,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. State
...occurring out of the presence and hearing of the conspirator on trial. Lapp v. State, 519 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Saddler v. State, 320 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.Cr.App.1959). The independent evidence of a conspiracy between appellant and Smith in the instant case is quite sufficient. Appellant......
-
Smith v. State
...indictment. Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Phelps v. State, 462 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); Saddler v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 309, 320 S.W.2d 146 (1959). Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecutor's conduct was improper nor is it shown that harm was caused. The ev......
-
Arnott v. State
...declaration occurred out of the presence of and hearing of the conspirator on trial. See Phelps v. State, supra, and Saddler v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 309, 320 S.W.2d 146. In the Parnell case, supra, the defendant was indicted in one count as a conspirator and in another count for embezzlemen......
-
Miller v. Dretke
...the State may introduce based on exceptions to the hearsay rule. In opposing a COA, the State, relying upon Saddler v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 309, 320 S.W.2d 146 (1959), contends that Woods' statements are not inadmissible hearsay because they are declarations of one conspirator made in furth......