Alcala v. State

293 S.W.2d 645, 163 Tex. Crim. 453, 1956 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1126
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 30, 1956
Docket28352
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 293 S.W.2d 645 (Alcala v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alcala v. State, 293 S.W.2d 645, 163 Tex. Crim. 453, 1956 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1126 (Tex. 1956).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for possessing marijuana, a narcotic, with punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

About eleven o’clock at night, appellant, in an automobile parked on a street near a beer tavern in the city of San Angelo, was arrested by policemen. One of the officers testified that he made the arrest because of facts which indicated to him and the other officer with him that appellant was, at that time, about to engage in an act of sexual intercourse with a woman on the front seat of the car.

Nineteen marijuana cigarettes were found on appellant’s person after the arrest.

Appellant registered no objection, because of any lack of authority in the officer to make the arrest, to the introduction in evidence of some eight of the cigarettes found on his person. He insists, however, that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction and that his arrest was unlawful. In other words, it is appellant’s position that he can raise the question of lawfulness of arrest merely by insisting that the facts are insufficient.

With that contention we do not agree. If the arrest was un* *455 lawful, appellant should have objected to the introduction of the evidence at the time.

Appellant insists that the state did not properly identify as being the same taken from his person the marijuana analyzed by the chemist.

We need not rule upon that contention, for the arresting officer testified that he had had experience in detecting marijuana and that the substance in the cigarettes was, in his opinion, marijuana.

As the same testimony had been introduced through another source without objection, appellant’s later objection thereto is untenable.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ward v. State
659 S.W.2d 643 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Pittman v. State
488 S.W.2d 89 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Jordan v. State
486 S.W.2d 784 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Boothe v. State
474 S.W.2d 219 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Satery v. State
455 S.W.2d 294 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Caffey v. State
433 S.W.2d 900 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Williams v. State
331 S.W.2d 214 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Miller v. State
330 S.W.2d 466 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
293 S.W.2d 645, 163 Tex. Crim. 453, 1956 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcala-v-state-texcrimapp-1956.