Hudson v. State

361 S.W.2d 388, 172 Tex. Crim. 565, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1086
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 31, 1962
Docket34794
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 361 S.W.2d 388 (Hudson 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
Hudson v. State, 361 S.W.2d 388, 172 Tex. Crim. 565, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1086 (Tex. 1962).

Opinions

BELCHER, Judge.

Upon a plea of not guilty before the court without a jury, the appellant was convicted of the illegal possession of amphetamine; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Officer Wages testified that he observed the appellant staggering as he walked along a sidewalk adjoining a public street, and from six to ten feet away he called for the appellant to “wait”; that no odor of alcohol was detected on the appellant, but the appellant’s speech was incoherent, “and he was hopped up”. Upon a search, Officer Wages testified that he found 27 pills in a container in the right pants pocket of the appellant and about one-half that number in his left pants pocket.

A chemist testified that an analysis made by him of the pills revealed that they contained amphetamine.

The appellant, while testifying in his own behalf, admitted that the pills were in his pants pocket at the time in question and had been in his possession for about three days, but that he had no idea that the pills contained amphetamine.

[566]*566Appellant’s sole contention is that his arrest was illegal and therefore the search of his person and the seizure of the property and its admission into evidence was error.

It is not necessary to appraise appellant’s contention because appellant is not in a position to complain of the state’s introduction of evidence of his possession of the pills when appellant admitted while testifying that he had possession of the pills. Salinas v. State, 159 Texas Cr. Rep. 619, 266 S.W. 2d 388; Rao v. State, 160 Texas Cr. Rep. 416, 271 S.W. 2d 426; MacKenna v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 623, 301 S.W. 2d 657; Cortez v. State, 165 Texas Cr. Rep. 320, 306 S.W. 2d 713; 5 Texas Jur. 2d, Sec. 446, pp. 707-708.

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

Related

Finch v. State
592 P.2d 1196 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1979)
Gorrell v. State
468 S.W.2d 95 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Cook v. State
409 S.W.2d 857 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Parker v. State
384 S.W.2d 712 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Hudson v. State
361 S.W.2d 388 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
361 S.W.2d 388, 172 Tex. Crim. 565, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-state-texcrimapp-1962.