Case Name: Johnny HAMMONDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1958-05-07
Citations: 316 S.W.2d 423
Docket Number: No. 29679
Parties: Johnny HAMMONDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 316
Pages: 423–428

Head Matter:
Johnny HAMMONDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 29679.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 7, 1958.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1958.
Thomas K. Bamford, Robert C. Bena-vides, Charles H. Hardeman, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Jack Cole, Homer Montgomery and A. D. Jim Bowie, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
WOODLEY, Judge.
The offense is the unlawful sale of heroin, a narcotic drug; the punishment, thirty-five years.
The sufficiency of the evidence being challenged, the testimony must be appraised in the light most favorable to the jury's findings.
The indictment alleged that appellant and Elizabeth Ann Johnson, acting together, sold heroin to Dan Evans. The court charged on the law of principals and, in applying the law, authorized a conviction upon a finding that appellant, acting together with Elizabeth Ann Johnson, did unlawfully sell heroin to Dan Evans.
Elizabeth Ann Johnson, who the testimony shows had been convicted for her part in such sale of heroin, testified as a witness for the State.
The jury was not instructed that she was an accomplice witness whose testimony required corroboration, and no such charge was requested, and the omission of such .charge was not complained of.
Appellant correctly contends that though he may not complain in this Court of the omission of the charge mentioned, this Court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence, must treat the testimony of Elizabeth Ann Johnson as that of an accomplice witness and find sufficient evidence from other sources tending to connect appellant with the commission of the offense; that is, find that her testimony was corroborated. Pitts v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 210 S.W. 199.
Appellant did not testify.
Dan Evans, "undercover officer," received $26 from City Detective Stringfellow with which to buy narcotics if he could find such. Pie picked up Edward Jordan, also known as Little Fat, and drove down Thomas Avenue in North Dallas.
They were flagged down by three people, one being Elizabeth Ann Johnson, and two males, one called George. They said they wanted to go to South Dallas and got in the back seat. Neither of the parties knew that Dan Evans was seeking evidence for law enforcement officers.
They parked the car on Colorado Street In South Dallas and Elizabeth Ann Johnson got out, entered an apartment house and went upstairs to appellant's apartment. She remained some three minutes and came back to the car.
Two or three minutes later appellant backed his Pontiac car from the driveway and drove beside the car in which Dan Evans, Elizabeth Ann Johnson, Little Fat, George and the other man were seated. Dan Evans then handed Elizabeth Ann Johnson two $10 bills and a $1 bill, out of the money furnished him by Detective Stringfellow, and George, another occupant of the car, gave her $10 "to buy him one capsule."
Elizabeth Ann Johnson then got out of Evans' car and into the car with appellant and they were looking at each other and glancing back to the Evans car and their lips were moving.
Appellant drove ahead of the Evans car some twenty-five or thirty feet, then backed up even with the Evans car, and Elizabeth Ann called to George and told him to stick his head out the window and he did so, and appellant was looking at George.
Appellant then drove ahead some fifty or sixty feet and after some motions were made by him and Elizabeth Ann, she returned to the Evans car and handed Dan Evans three capsules which proved to contain heroin. The capsules were thereafter delivered to Detective Stringfellow.
Dan Evans testified that he gave Elizabeth Ann Johnson $21 and she delivered to him three capsules, and George gave her $10 "to buy him one capsule" and he received one capsule and she returned to him $3; that she returned from appellant's car with five capsules, gave one to George, three to him (Dan Evans) and kept one for herself.
Elizabeth Ann Johnson, the accomplice witness, testified that she got in the car with Dan Evans and three others, one being George, and another Little Fat; that she got money from the four and bought "dope" from Johnny Hammonds (appellant) ; that she gave the money to appellant and got narcotics ; that she gave the narcotics or whatever she got from appellant "to who it belonged to."
She further testified that she received $21 from Dan Evans and gave it to appellant in payment for narcotics, and that she did not get to keep any of it for herself. She also testified:
"Q. All right now, Elizabeth Ann, I will ask you if it's true or not, tell the jury whether or not this is true: that back on January 25, of 1957, you and Johnny Hammonds made a sale to this special officer, Dan Evans, for $21.00 and got three caps of — I'll leave it out from Johnny Hammonds? Do you want me to repeat the question? A. No. It's true."
On cross-examination she testified:
"Q. ⅛ other words as far as George was concerned, was George the one who was buying these capsules, as far as Johnny was concerned? A. That's right.
"Q. Johnny didn't know anything at all about Dan Evans, did he? A. No.
"Q. You sold those capsules to Dan Evans yourself, didn't you? A. I guess I did.
"Q. And then you sold some to George, isn't that correct — or little Fat? A. That's right. Well, Little Fat is the one that Dan Evans had."
"Q. You say that it is the truth that Johnny Hammonds was selling this narcotics, as far as he was concerned, to Little Fat. Isn't that correct? A. You mean that Johnny didn't know that Dan Evans was a policeman, is that what you mean ?
"Q. No. I mean that Johnny thought he was selling these capsules to Little Fat. Isn't that correct? A. I don't know because I think Johnny thought he was selling it to me.
"Q. All right and then he didn't think he was selling it to any of these others. A. I don't think so."
We are impressed with the testimony to the effect that appellant backed up his car and required "George" to show himself while Elizabeth Ann was with him, before which she went to him with three $10 bills and an additional one, and after which she returned to the Evans car with $3 in change for George, three caps of heroin for Dan Evans, one cap for George and one for herself.
No other explanation appears as to why appellant was interested in seeing George except that he thought that George was one who desired to purchase narcotics. No one else was in position to have received the money delivered to Elizabeth Ann by Dan Evans and George, and furnish the heroin in return therefor, except appellant.
If the transaction was simply a sale by appellant to Elizabeth Ann no reason appears why it could not have been consummated without appellant satisfying himself by a look at "George", or without him leaving his apartment.
We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction, and hold that the testimony of Dan Evans corroborates the testimony of the accomplice witness.
Appellant, under the indictment, would be guilty as a principal in the unlawful sale: (1) If he was the seller and was aided in the sale by the accomplice witness; (2) If he and the accomplice witness made the sale jointly; or (3) If the accomplice witness made the sale to Dan Evans and appellant aided and encouraged the sale, knowing her intent. In either such event his conviction was authorized upon the facts and under the court's charge.
The judgment is affirmed.