Case ID: sw2d_294/html/0820-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BELCHER, Commissioner.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pete MATA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 28533.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 7, 1956.
    No attorney for’ appellant of record on .•appeal. .
    Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for tpe State.
   BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the possession of -marihuana; the punishment,.four.years in ±he penitentiary. ...

The testimony of two police officers shows that under authority of a search warrant they searched appellant’s upstairs apartment. Officer Kline searched inside and Officer McCown went through the rear door of the apartment onto a porch where he found in a water drain a jar which contained marihuana, re-entered the apartment, showed the jar to the appellant, and asked him where the other marihuana was located. Appellant:, in response tó' Officer McCown’s question, went onto "the rear porch and took a can which contained 150 marihuana cigarettes ' from under a’ small platform and delivered it to him.'

Appellant, while testifying in his- .own behalf, admitted, in substance the .facts related by the pojice .officers .except that he had no knowledge of the marihuana and did not get a can containing marihuana cigarettes from the porch and deliver it to Officer McCown. He further stated that he saw the jar and the can for the first time when Officer McCown brought rthem into the .apartment and that he had no prior knowledge of them.

Appellant's requested charge stating that if another person .placed the marihuana on the upstairs porch and appellant had no knowledge thereof to acquit him was in substance included in the court’s main charge. Hence the refusal of the requested charge was not error.

The issues of fact were resolved by thé jury against the appellant, and. we find the. evidence sufficient to support their Verdict. ''

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.