Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 16 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34602,34602 |
| Citation | 172 Tex.Crim. 461,358 S.W.2d 124 |
| Parties | Alfred TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Orville A. Harlan, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, Robert Edward Delany, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is under Art. 725b, Vernon's Ann.P.C., for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, with punishment assessed at life imprisonment, enhanced under Art. 63, V.A.P.C., by reason of two prior convictions for felony offenses less than capital.
The indictment charged that the appellant did unlawfully possess a narcotic drug, to-wit: dolophine.
The state's evidence shows that on April 7, 1961, the date alleged in the indictment, Federal Narcotic Agent John E. Sherman, upon being informed that narcotics could be purchased at a certain address in the city of Houston, drove to the corner of Rosalie and Dowling Streets in company with an informer. When they arrived, they observed the appellant and a companion, Helen Jackson, seated in an automobile. The informer proceeded to the automobile and after talking to appellant and his companion, returned to the agent's car. Agent Sherman then gave $30 to the informer, who returned to where the couple were seated and handed the money to appellant's companion, Helen Jackson. Agent Sherman then proceeded to drive to various places in the city upon the instructions of appellant and his companion. While he was driving, appellant told his companion, Helen Jackson, to give him the money because his connection 'Roy' would only sell to him. After continuing to drive, Agent Sherman--upon appellant's instructions--stopped the car and 'honked' the horn. Thereupon, a person identified as 'Roy' came to the car and after talking to appellant and receiving some money from him gave appellant five capsules. Appellant then directed Agent Sherman to drive to a 'cool' place, by which he meant a secluded place. When they arrived, appellant gave Agent Sherman a capsule and $14 in money and also gave a capsule to the informer. After delivering the capsules, appellant, the informer, and Helen Jackson proceeded to take a 'fix' with some of the capsules, by an injection into their arms with an eye dropper and syringe.
It was shown that the contents of the capsule delivered to Agent Sherman by the appellant were analyzed by Chemist Kenneth Anderson of the Alcohol and Tobacco Division of the United States Treasury Department at Dallas, Texas. Chemist Anderson testified that the results of the various tests run upon the contents of the capsule showed that the substance was 37.7 per cent dolophine, a narcotic drug. He testified that dolophine was a registered trade name of Eli Lilly Company but that he could not say that the substance contained in the capsule in question was in fact made by that company. He further testified that the chemical formula for dolophine was 4-4-Diphenyl-6-Dimenthylamino-Heptanone-3, and that dolophine was indistinguishable from amidone and methadone hydrochloride, both of which are narcotic drugs and have the same formula.
Proof was made by the state that appellant had been twice previously convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, of two noncapital felony offenses. The first conviction on October 1, 1951, was for the offense of unlawfully acquiring marihuana and the second conviction on April 22, 1953, was for the offense of unlawfully forging and passing a United States Treasurer's check.
Appellant did not testify of offer any evidence in his behalf.
Appellant urges as unconstitutional that portion of section 1, subdivision (14) of Art. 725b, V.A.P.C., defining a narcotic drug, which reads: '* * * and opiates which shall mean any drug found to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Taylor
...under the provisions of Article 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C. The conviction was affirmed by this court and reported in Taylor v. State, 358 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1962). Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), petitioner first filed his habeas corpu......
-
Turner v. State
...the issue is raised." (Emphasis supplied.) Briggs v. State, 740 S.W.2d 803, 806-807 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). See also Taylor v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 461, 358 S.W.2d 124 (App.1967); Parent v. State, 621 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Coberly v. State, 644 S.W.2d 734, 735 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Skinner ......
-
White v. State, 2--673A142
...State (1968), 251 Ind. 306, 241 N.E.2d 138 (morphine); Glenn v. State (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 103 (heroin); Taylor v. State (1962), 172 Tex.Cr.App. 461, 358 S.W.2d 124 (expert testimony establishing that dolophine, which was not listed by the statute, was a synonymous trade name for am......
-
Briggs v. State
...734, 735 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). See also Smith v. State, 658 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Parent v. State, supra; Taylor v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 461, 358 S.W.2d 124 (1962); Hypke v. State, 720 S.W.2d 158 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court fo......