Case Name: Herman Lamon BARNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1956-10-31
Citations: 294 S.W.2d 835
Docket Number: No. 28518
Parties: Herman Lamon BARNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 294
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
Herman Lamon BARNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 28518.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 31, 1956.
No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.
Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., William F. Alexander and George P. Blackburn, Asst. Criminal Dist. Attys., Dallas* • and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Atistin, for the State. -

Opinion:
. MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is a violation of Article 725b, Sec.. 2, .Vernon's Ann.P.C., which denounces the possession of paraphernalia for using narcotic drugs; the punishment, 10 years.
Detective Boyd testified that, on' the night in question, he and . his partner Hart observed the appellant standing near a tree on a sidewalk near a .park in the City of Dallas and that , as they passed the appellant turned his head and walked back in the shadow of the tree, which action on his part caused them to bring their automobile to a halt and question the áppellant. Boyd stated that the-appellant told'them that he was-unemployed, had just come from Oklahoma City; and had been in- the Federal hospital for nárcotics. Boyd further testified, with-out objection, that he searched the appellant's person, found a hypodermic needle,' an eyedropper syringe, and several needle marks, one of which was fresh and bloody, on appellant's arm. Boyd testified that, from his experience as an officer, the needle marks resembled those commonly found on, narcotic addicts and the needle and syringe resembled the paraphernalia commonly used by addicts.
The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.
There are no bills of exception, formal or informal, and nothing urged for review.
The indictment properly charged the offense, and, the evidence being sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.