Woolridge v. State
| Citation | 514 S.W.2d 257 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48750,48750 |
| Parties | James WOOLRIDGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Marvin O. Teague, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Clyde F. DeWitt, III and George Jacobs, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction for unlawful possession of marihuana, a narcotic drug. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty, the court assessed punishment at five years' confinement.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
The record reflects that Houston police officer S. W. Shuman, while working offduty at the Northwest Mall shopping center about 12:00 P.M., November 12, 1971, received information from a Mall maintenance man to look for a described vehicle that was 'prowling' the parking area. Shuman observed a vehicle matching the description and pursued the automobile with his personal truck. He testified that he saw co-defendant Grant go to another car, and commence opening the hood, and then return to the suspect vehicle. Shuman then approached the car and identified himself as a police officer. When he saw Grant had a pistol, he drew his own pistol and made Grant drop his pistol. Shuman had both appellant and Grant get out of the car. After a struggle for the officer's gun, Shuman gained control, and then made a cursory inspection of the inside of the vehicle for weapons, and took the appellant and Grant to a Mall security office to call for additional help.
When Officers Taylor and Key arrived, Shuman told them to make a search of the automobile driven by appellant for contraband which might have been stolen from cars in the Mall parking lot. A new battery and tape deck were discovered in the trunk of the car but were not shown to have been stolen. Appellant and Grant were brought by the officers to the Mall parking area near the vehicle and placed in patrol cars to await transportation to jail. Taylor testified that after completing the search, while making out the wrecker slip to remove the vehicle, '. . . one of the defendants called that he had a watch left in the car that was valuable and he would like to have it.' Taylor returned to the car, saw a watch on the console between the front seats, and, when reaching for the watch, noticed some tape underneath the glove compartment. He removed the tape and discovered thirteen matchboxes which contained what he believed to be marihuana. Taylor testified that the objects taped under the glove compartment would not be visible to a person sitting in the passenger's or driver's seat.
The owner of the automobile driven by appellant, Linda Perkins, testified she turned her vehicle over to appellant for him to perform mechanical repair work at about 7:30 A.M. on the day in question. She testified that she did not lock her car at work where it was normally parked on a large lot, that she sometimes did not lock the car at night, and that her brother occasionally used the car. She also testified that she neither put nor saw the marihuana in her automobile. In response to a question by the State, Perkins testified that she had never before had anything 'planted' in her car.
Co-defendant Grant testified to a different version of the arrest and struggle in the parking lot with Shuman, and denied knowledge of the marihuana. Appellant did not testify.
The case was submitted to the jury under a charge of circumstantial evidence. Co-defendant Grant was found not guilty.
Since the accused is charged with the unlawful possession of a narcotic, the State must prove that he exercised care, control and management over the object and that he knew the object he possessed was contraband. E.g., Payne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 732; Ramos v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,478 S.W.2d 102; Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 541. The mere presence of the accused at a place where narcotics are found does not of itself show possession. E.g., Harvey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 75; Valdez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 904. See United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earvin v. State
...Underwood v. State, 571 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Hernandez v. State, 517 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Woolridge v. State, 514 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)).2 Pollan, supra, at 596, Hughes supra, at 582, Hahn v. State, 502 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Lewis v. State, 5......
-
Zertuche v. State, 13-88-239-CR
...exercised care, control and management over the substance and that he actually knew he possessed contraband. Woolridge v. State, 514 S.W.2d 257, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Payne, 480 S.W.2d at 734. Although these links may properly be established through circumstantial evidence, the evidence ......
-
Harrison v. State, 53609
...v. State, 532 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Hineline v. State, supra; Alba v. State, 492 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Woolridge v. State, 514 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). We now consider the evidence in this voluminous record from which the State says: "That (appellant) was distinctively ......
-
State v. Bowyer, WD
...substance was found. Harris v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 904, 906[3, 4] (5th Cir.1981). Similarly, the court determined in Woolridge v. State, 514 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) that the presence of the defendant driver, and sole occupant, of a car turned over by a friend for repairs was not suff......