Court Opinion

ID: 9666032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:02:59.586114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:22.773054
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ODOM, Judge.
This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin. The punishment was assessed by the court at 35 years.
Austin police officer A1 Hersom testified that on April 3, 1970, he obtained a 1959 Pontiac automobile and picked up Willie Eaton at his residence in Austin. They went to the police pound where Eaton and the automobile were thoroughly searched. Eaton was caused to take “his britches” off and “was stripped of everything” in his pockets. Hersom determined there were no narcotics on Eaton or in the automobile. Eaton then was given $50.00 and he got into the car. Hersom got into the trunk of the car which had been altered to allow outside visibility. The two then proceeded to 2605 East 7th Street where appellant was observed by Hersom standing in front of the house. Eaton inquired of appellant if he had any “stuff”. The appellant went into the house and then came back and walked toward the car holding in his hand “a little silver bundle”. Because of his position in the trunk Hersom lost sight of appellant’s hand when it “started up” toward the car with “a silver object”. Eaton drove away and stopped shortly thereafter and handed to Hersom the object he had in his hand — “a silver object”. Hersom examined the contents and found the bundle to contain a tannish powder.
The two then proceeded to the police pound where Eaton and the car were again searched. No narcotics were found in such search and Eaton no longer had the $50.00.
Officers Robert W. Jones and W. J. Taylor, of the Austin Police Department, testified that they followed the car occupied by Eaton and Officer Hersom and observed, by use of binoculars, an exchange between Eaton and the appellant.
At the time of the trial Eaton was shown to have been dead.
*223Appellant first contends that it was error for the trial court to refuse to submit a charge to the jury on circumstantial evidence.
We conclude that the facts proved in the instant case are of such close juxtaposition to the main fact to be proved as to be equivalent to direct testimony, and a charge on circumstantial evidence was not required. Riggins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 841; Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 791; Leal v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 736; Chapin v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 320 S.W.2d 341.
Next, appellant contends that “there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the amount of heroin possessed was sufficient in amount to produce a narcotic effect or to be useable as a narcotic.”
The record reflects that the tannish powder recovered was .99 of a gram of heroin. Joe Ronald Urbanosky, a chemist and toxicologist with the Department of Public Safety, testified that 20 to 30 capsules of heroin would normally be obtained from .99 of a gram. We perceive no error. See Alaniz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 813; Parson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 89; Tuttle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 S.W.2d 780.
There being no reversible error, the. judgment is affirmed.