McCall v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

McCall v. State

322 S.W.2d 291, 167 Tex. Crim. 559, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1902

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 25, 1959

Docket30556

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 322 S.W.2d 291 (McCall 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

McCall v. State, 322 S.W.2d 291, 167 Tex. Crim. 559, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1902 (Tex. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault upon a peace officer; the trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

Officer Goodnight of the Houston police testified that, in company with Officer Goodman on the day in question, he received information from a citizen that the appellant, who was pointed out to him, would come into possession of certain narcotics in a very short while and that, pursuant to such information, he continued to watch the appellant’s automobile. He stated further that within a few minutes an automobile came to a halt near the automobile occupied by the appellant, the driver got out, went to the window of appellant’s automobile, handed him a package, ran back to his automobile, and immediately drove away. Goodnight and his fellow officer gave chase, overtook the appellant’s automobile, identified himself, and searched the appellant’s person, where he found a tobacco can which was later shown to contain marijuana. At this moment, the appellant struck Officer Goodnight in the chest and kicked him in the leg, and hit and struck each of the officers as they struggled with him on the ground and until he was subdued and placed in handcuffs. It was this assault which constitutes the basis of this prosecution.

Appellant’s confession was introduced in evidence in which he recited that he had bought a can of marijuana from one “George” just before he was arrested by the officers.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that his confession had been voluntarily made and called a doctor who examined him the following day and who testified that he found certain contusions and abrasions on the person of the appellant.

The court resolved the conflict in the evidence against the *561 appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support his finding.

No brief has been filed on behalf of the appellant, but we gather from the objections that he contended that the arrest was unlawful and that he had a right to defend against an unlawful arrest. We have concluded that the information which the officer received, plus the action of the parties at the scene, was sufficient to lead the officers to believe that a felony was being, committed in their presence and to authorize the arrest without a warrant. Sanders v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 293, 312 S.W. 2d 640.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault upon a peace officer; the trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

Officer Goodnight of the Houston police testified that, in company with Officer Goodman on the day in question, he received information from a citizen that the appellant, who was pointed out to him, would come into possession of certain narcotics in a very short while and that, pursuant to such information, he continued to watch the appellant’s automobile. He stated further that within a few minutes an automobile came to a halt near the automobile occupied by the appellant, the driver got out, went to the window of appellant’s automobile, handed him a package, ran back to his automobile, and immediately drove away. Goodnight and his fellow officer gave chase, overtook the appellant’s automobile, identified himself, and searched the appellant’s person, where he found a tobacco can which was later shown to contain marijuana. At this moment, the appellant struck Officer Goodnight in the chest and kicked him in the leg, and hit and struck each of the officers as they struggled with him on the ground and until he was subdued and placed in handcuffs. It was this assault which constitutes the basis of this prosecution.

Appellant’s confession was introduced in evidence in which he recited that he had bought a can of marijuana from one “George” just before he was arrested by the officers.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that his confession had been voluntarily made and called a doctor who examined him the following day and who testified that he found certain contusions and abrasions on the person of the appellant.

The court resolved the conflict in the evidence against the *561 appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support his finding.

No brief has been filed on behalf of the appellant, but we gather from the objections that he contended that the arrest was unlawful and that he had a right to defend against an unlawful arrest. We have concluded that the information which the officer received, plus the action of the parties at the scene, was sufficient to lead the officers to believe that a felony was being, committed in their presence and to authorize the arrest without a warrant. Sanders v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 293, 312 S.W. 2d 640.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 S.W.2d 291, 167 Tex. Crim. 559, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccall-v-state-texcrimapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack