Salinas v. State, 47970
| Decision Date | 03 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47970,47970 |
| Citation | 507 S.W.2d 730 |
| Parties | Oscar SALINAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Wayne I. Fagan (Court appointed), San Antonio, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Gus Wilcox and David Chapman, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the sale of heroin; the punishment, imprisonment for thirteen years.
The appellant urges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the results of the gas chromatography test performed upon State's Exhibit 3 by Torraco, the chemist for the San Antonio Police Department. Torraco was qualified as an expert witness and testified that he used several procedures to determine that State's Exhibit 3 was heroin. The analysis included the use of gas chromatography and thin layer chromatography. Since at the time of trial there was no objection to Torraco's testimony nothing was preserved for review. See Haggerty v. State, 491 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
The appellant also contends that the Court erroneously admitted the heroin into evidence because a chain of custody had not been established. The appellant's specific objection was that neither the undercover agent Chevera nor Officer Cuellar could identify the brown powdered substance in the envelope, which Torraco said was heroin, as being in fact the same substance contained in the wrapper when Chevera purchased it from the appellant and which he then conveyed to Cuellar, who in turn delivered it to Torraco. We find that the chain of custody was sufficiently shown for the admission of the exhibit and that the objection would be to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence. See Cyrus v. State, 500 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Lee v. State, 496 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Luna v. State, 493 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Hice v. State, 491 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Kilburn v. State, 490 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). There was no evidence that the exhibit had been tampered with. See Yantis v. State, 476 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Walker v. State, 470 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
The appellant has presented matters in a pro se brief and appointed appellante counsel has argued additional matters not contained in the brief filed in the trial court and not supported in the record. Counsel's argument is based upon a 'Second Motion for New Trial' which was untimely filed. We reject the appellant's request that we consider these matters or that w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bird v. State
...Pringle v. State, 511 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Norris v. State, 507 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Salinas v. State, 507 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Bueno v. State, 501 S.W.2d 339 Taking a different tact, appellant also urges the court erred in admitting the key because it was in viola......
-
Leal v. State
...See Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Patton v. State, 617 S.W.2d 255, 256 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Salinas v. State, 507 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). The tape was admissible into evidence. The better procedure with regard to the translation would be to bring in an int......
-
Chappell v. State, s. 48820
...briefs. These new grounds of error are not properly before this Court for review. Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P.; e.g., Salinas v. State, 507 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Smith v. State, 502 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Henriksen v. State, 500 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Jones v. State,......
-
Nelson v. State
...and end of the chain of custody, any gaps in between go to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. Salinas v. State, 507 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). Thus, it was not ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to object to admissible evidence. Cooper v. State, 707 S.W.2......
-
DWI Defense
...and end of the chain of custody, any gaps in between go to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. [ Salinas v. State , 507 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Juhasz v. State , 827 S.W.2d 397, 403 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d ).] A chain of custody is conclu......