Court Opinion

ID: 9769802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:02:28.616066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:08.181017
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
dissenting.
The question in the instant case is whether the offenses of possession of marihuana, and the failure to pay tax on that marihuana are the same for jeopardy purposes. For the following reasons, I believe the question should be answered in the affirmative.
The relevant inquiry in this case is governed by Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), where the Supreme Court set out the test to determine whether two offenses are the same for jeopardy purposes:
The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.
Id., 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182.
The majority correctly states, “[t]he elements contained in the charging instruments, rather than the penal provisions, are controlling.” Ante, at 270.1 Comparing the indictments in each case, I find the elements of the possession case are:
(1) appellee
(2) did knowingly
(3) possess
(4) a useable quantity of
(5) marihuana
(6)in an amount more than 5 lbs but not more than 50 lbs.
and the elements of the tax case are:
(1) appellee
(2) did knowingly or intentionally
(3) purchase, acquire2 or produce
(4) 9,000 grams of
(5) marihuana
(6) a taxable substance,
(7) on which a tax has not previously been paid;
(8) and the defendant did not securely affix in the manner required by the Comptroller to the taxable substance the appropriate tax payment certificate to show payment of the tax.
While the words may be slightly different, “possess” and “acquire” are synonymous in this context. And, 9,000 grams is clearly a useable quantity. See, King v. State, 675 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); and, Lejeune v. State, 538 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tex.Cr. App.1976). Therefore, under Blockburger, the possession of marihuana offense is the same as the tax offense for jeopardy purposes. Because the Majority does not so hold, I respectfully dissent.

. Because this inquiry is governed by the allegations in the charging instruments, each case is governed by its own particular pleadings.

. Acquire is defined as follows: "to come into possession of ...” Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 8 (1963).