Stuart v. State, 42826
| Decision Date | 06 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42826,42826 |
| Citation | 456 S.W.2d 129 |
| Parties | Marvin Quinton STUART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., and James C. Brough and J. Robert Musslewhite, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to wit, hashish; the punishment, thirty years.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the allegation in the indictment that he 'did then and there unlawfully possess a narcotic drug, to wit, hashish' was a conclusion and does not allege the component parts of hashish.
Under the express terms of Article 725b, Sec. 1(13)(14), Vernon's Ann.P.C., hashish is named as a narcotic drug. Having alleged the name of a particular drug as a narcotic drug, the possession of which is forbidden by statute, the state is not required to go further and allege its component parts. 40 Tex.Jur.2d 419, Sec. 12; 3 Branch 2d 355, Sec. 1423.2. It is pointed out that marijuana by name is forbidden by the same statute as is hashish. The form of indictment in the instant case has been consistently held to be sufficient in charging the possession of marijuana. Gonzalez v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 49, 323 S.W.2d 55. The first ground of error is overruled.
The second ground of error is that the court overruled appellant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained as the results of an illegal search.
A hearing was held on the motion in the absence of the jury. The testimony reveals that about 2:30 p.m., on Sunday, Officer Blevins, while at home, received information from an informant from whom he had previously received information which had been correct on six or seven prior occasions. The informant, whose voice Blevins recognized, told him that the appellant, who was personally known to Blevins, would be at a certain location in about 45 minutes or an hour where he would wait a few minutes for someone and then leave town and he would have marijuana and hashish in his possession. Blevins did not have time to get a search warrant; so he contacted Officer Grubbs and they went to the described location where they saw the appellant sitting alone in a parked Buick automobile bearing a license number which Blevins knew through his previous investigations was registered for a Plymouth. They parked alongside appellant's car and asked him to step out which he did. The search followed resulting in the finding of a cellophane bag containing the alleged hashish.
The facts and circumstances in evidence were sufficient to constitute probable cause and authorized the search of the appellant without an arrest or search warrant. Arts. 14.03, and 14.04, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Platt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 402 S.W.2d 898; Ortega v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 465. The second ground of error is overruled.
The third and sixth grounds are that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for change of venue.
The application for change of venue was sworn to on October 12, 1968, by the appellant before his attorney. One affidavit in support of the application was signed by Leonard Ray Broussard and Kenneth J. Buntion as compurgators on October 12, 1968, and sworn to before appellant's attorney. Another affidavit was signed by appellant's father, Marvin W. Stuart and William R. Thomas, a friend, and sworn to before Raymond Thomas, a notary public, on October 14, 1968. The motion for change of venue was filed on October 15, 1968.
The trial began on November 12, 1968. At the outset of the trial the court, without hearing and evidence, overruled the motion for change of venue, and the appellant excepted thereto. Before the selection of the jury began the appellant, without amending his motion for change of venue or filing an affidavit sworn to before another than his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. State
...question of fact as to whether the accused knowingly possessed such contraband is presented for jury determination. 4 e.g. Stuart v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 129; Tomlin v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 108, 338 S.W.2d 735; Sosa v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 193, 275 S.W.2d In the instant case, appe......
-
Garza v. State
...County. He relies on cases that construe the statute allowing a change of venue on the defendant's motion. See, e.g., Stuart v. State, 456 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Crim.App.1970). That statute, unlike article 31.02, specifically requires affidavits to be attached to the motion for change of venue. S......
-
Horner v. State
...that does not adhere to statutory requirements. See Christopher v. State, 489 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Stuart v. State, 456 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); Hinkle v. State, 442 S.W.2d 728, 733 Thus, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mot......
-
Lopez v. State
...any reason unavailable. In those circumstances, the action of the court in denying appellant's motion was not error. Stuart v. State, 456 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). In support of the contention that he should have been allowed to cross-examine the State's witnesses as to the arrangements......