Sutton v. State, 29995
| Decision Date | 22 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29995,29995 |
| Parties | Henry SUTTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Jon N. Hughes, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is possession of heroin; the punishment, life.
Officer Stringfellow of the narcotics division of the Houston police force testified, in the absence of the jury on the issue of probable cause, that on the night in question he received information from a woman he knew named Maxine that the appellant would soon thereafter be leaving his home in his automobile to make a delivery of heroin and that he proceeded at once, in company with his fellow officer Gray, to the appellant's home, which was only a short distance away. Before the jury, he and Gray testified that as they approached the appellant's home they saw him walking from the direction of his house toward his automobile parked at the curb, that as they approached him on foot with their flash-lights the appellant placed an entire lighted cigarette in his mouth and threw a small tinfoil wrapped package onto the right floorboard of his automobile, which when retrieved was shown to contain three oneounce packages of heroin. He further testified that the appellant was carried immediately to the police station where he made a written confession.
The confession which was introduced into evidence state that shortly before the appellant's arrest he had received a telephone order from a woman named Marvie Mae for three capsules of heroin, that he had secured the same and, while smoking a marijuana cigarette, had started toward his automobile when he saw Officers Stringfellow and Gray approaching him, that he then swallowed the cigarette and dropped the three capsules of heroin on the floorboard of his automobile.
The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he was arrested on the left side of his automobile, and not on the right as the officers had stated; that the officers had found nothing in his automobile, but that one of them had stooped down near the right front wheel and then stated, 'Look what I found.' He denied the truthfulness of the confession, said that he could not read and had signed the same because the officers had instructed him to do so and because one of them slapped him once. He offered other witnesses who supported his testimony as to his being on the left side of his automobile at the time of his arrest and that one of the officers stooped down near the front of the automobile and said, 'Look what I found.' He admitted a prior Federal conviction for narcotics and three prior State felony convictions.
The appellant also called one Marvie Mae Mitchell who denied that she had called the appellant on the night in question and stated further that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maloy v. State, 55794
...with Landers alone taking the statement, does not render the confession inadmissible under Art. 38.22, supra. See Sutton v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 317 S.W.2d 58 (1958). No error is shown and this ground of error is In his third ground of error, appellant contends that the trial court err......
-
Baray v. State, 30224
...362, 285 S.W.2d 230; Sanders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 312 S.W.2d 640; Slaughter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 314 S.W.2d 92; and Sutton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 317 S.W.2d 58. Appellant's last contention that the city ordinance is unconstitutional was decided adversely to him in Purdy v. State, Tex.Cr......
-
Meadowes v. State, 35789
...Strickland gave appellant the warning and questioned him and that Officer Scholl reduced the statement to writing. In Sutton v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 317 S.W.2d 58, it was held that there was no irregularity in a confession where one officer gave the warning and questioned the accused a......
-
Morris v. State
...and authorized the search of appellant's automobile under our holdings in Sanders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 312 S.W.2d 640; Sutton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 317 S.W.2d 58; Baray v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 321 S.W.2d 87, and McCall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 322 S.W.2d We note, however, that no objection ......