Gonzales v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Gonzales v. State

379 S.W.2d 352, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1001

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 26, 1964

Docket36628

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 379 S.W.2d 352 (Gonzales 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

Gonzales v. State, 379 S.W.2d 352, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1001 (Tex. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The offense is the possession of marihuana; the punishment, twenty-five years. The testimony of three officers reveals that the appellant was apprehended at a bus station in Lubbock as he approached a bus then scheduled for departure to Plain-view. Upon a search of the appellant by the officers, they removed a tobacco can from the inside of the sock on his left foot. The can contained a quantity of plant substance. The officers expressed their opinion that the plant substance was marihuana. The testimony of a chemist who made an analysis of the plant substance shows that it was marihuana. When the tobacco can [353]*353and its contents were offered in evidence by the state, the court inquired of the appellant if he had any objection, to which he replied “No sir. In fact, we concede it is marihuana.”

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence.

Appellant strenuously insists that his arrest was illegal, that the search of his person resulting in the finding of the marihuana was invalid, and that the introduction of the marihuana into evidence was error.

No objections were made to the testimony of the three arresting officers that a search of appellant’s person resulted in finding in his sock a tobacco can containing a plant substance which in their opinion was marihuana, to the testimony of the chemist that the can contained marihuana, or to the introduction in evidence of the can and its contents. The failure to timely and properly object to such evidence and its introduction into evidence waived any complaint as to the search. Haykel v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 255 S.W.2d 1014; Williams v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 617, 317 S.W.2d 537; Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 353 S.W.2d 860.

The evidence being sufficient to support the conviction and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The offense is the possession of marihuana; the punishment, twenty-five years. The testimony of three officers reveals that the appellant was apprehended at a bus station in Lubbock as he approached a bus then scheduled for departure to Plain-view. Upon a search of the appellant by the officers, they removed a tobacco can from the inside of the sock on his left foot. The can contained a quantity of plant substance. The officers expressed their opinion that the plant substance was marihuana. The testimony of a chemist who made an analysis of the plant substance shows that it was marihuana. When the tobacco can [353]*353and its contents were offered in evidence by the state, the court inquired of the appellant if he had any objection, to which he replied “No sir. In fact, we concede it is marihuana.”

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence.

Appellant strenuously insists that his arrest was illegal, that the search of his person resulting in the finding of the marihuana was invalid, and that the introduction of the marihuana into evidence was error.

No objections were made to the testimony of the three arresting officers that a search of appellant’s person resulted in finding in his sock a tobacco can containing a plant substance which in their opinion was marihuana, to the testimony of the chemist that the can contained marihuana, or to the introduction in evidence of the can and its contents. The failure to timely and properly object to such evidence and its introduction into evidence waived any complaint as to the search. Haykel v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 255 S.W.2d 1014; Williams v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 617, 317 S.W.2d 537; Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 353 S.W.2d 860.

The evidence being sufficient to support the conviction and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 S.W.2d 352, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzales-v-state-texcrimapp-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack