Cherry v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cherry v. State

442 S.W.2d 745, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 976

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 18, 1969

DocketNo. 42163

StatusPublished

This text of 442 S.W.2d 745 (Cherry 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

Cherry v. State, 442 S.W.2d 745, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 976 (Tex. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is unlawful possession of marihuana; the punishment, 8 years.

There is no showing of indigency.

The defendant’s brief filed in the trial court does not meet the requirements of Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., in that it does not “set forth separately each ground of error of which defendant desires to complain on appeal.”

The brief appears to complain of the introduction of certain testimony over objection that it is hearsay. The testimony relates to information received by an officer which was not disclosed to the jury. The record reflects, however, that when confronted by the officer with such information the manager of the Lounge consented to the search of the premises and, while the search for marihuana was in progress, appellant said: “I’ll give you the marihuana, I know what you are after. I don’t want to implicate Mrs. Theames (the manager) in this.”

Thereafter, appellant took the officers to the women’s rest room, got six penny match boxes of marihuana from a beer case under other beer cases and handed them to Officer Garcia.

The ground of error is not before us. Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P.; Keel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 687.

If before us for review, the contention that the court reversibly erred in admitting the evidence over objection that it was hearsay is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is unlawful possession of marihuana; the punishment, 8 years.

There is no showing of indigency.

The defendant’s brief filed in the trial court does not meet the requirements of Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., in that it does not “set forth separately each ground of error of which defendant desires to complain on appeal.”

The brief appears to complain of the introduction of certain testimony over objection that it is hearsay. The testimony relates to information received by an officer which was not disclosed to the jury. The record reflects, however, that when confronted by the officer with such information the manager of the Lounge consented to the search of the premises and, while the search for marihuana was in progress, appellant said: “I’ll give you the marihuana, I know what you are after. I don’t want to implicate Mrs. Theames (the manager) in this.”

Thereafter, appellant took the officers to the women’s rest room, got six penny match boxes of marihuana from a beer case under other beer cases and handed them to Officer Garcia.

The ground of error is not before us. Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P.; Keel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 687.

If before us for review, the contention that the court reversibly erred in admitting the evidence over objection that it was hearsay is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 S.W.2d 745, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherry-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack