Court Opinion

ID: 9645850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:37:11.308754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:32.233148
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is possession of a narcotic drug; the punishment, 8 years.
The conviction must be reversed for two reasons.
The examining trial testimony of Officer Chavez was read into the record by agreement, which relates how he recovered a yellow cellophane capsule from appellant. In order to show that such capsule contained heroin, we find the following, “I then took that capsule and turned it over to the City Chemist Robert F. Crawford, who ran a chemical analysis on the capsule and found that it contained heroin.” No testimony from Crawford appears in the record. It is apparent that what Crawford found was information which Chavez had received and not knowledge which he had acquired on the scene, and was hearsay such as we held to be of no probative value in Pitcock v. State, 324 S. W. 2d 866; 324 S. W. 2d 867. No report was introduced in evidence.
*407The statement of the prosecutor as to what Crawford’s report showed could not take the place of evidence given “under the sanction of an oath.” Ex parte Clark, 164 Tex. Cr. Rep. 385, 299 S. W. 2d 128.
In accepting appellant’s plea, the court did so in practically the same words as are set forth in our opinion in Alexander v. State, 163 Tex. Cr. Rep. 53, 288 S. W. 2d 779, and which we held failed to properly admonish the accused of the consequences of his plea as required by Article 501, V.A.C.C.P.
For the reasons set forth, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.