Court Opinion

ID: 9645125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:13:25.220051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:23.504442
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
Appellant argues with much force that her possession of heroin, shown by the state’s evidence, was only such as necessarily resulted from her accommodation of Armstrong in its purchase. Her contention is that she could not be successfully prose*621cuted for the sale of heroin, under our holding in Durham v. State, 162 Tex. Cr. R. 25, 280 S.W. 2d 737, and Townsel v. State, 162 Tex. Cr. R. 433, 286 S.W. 2d 162, hence her conviction for the possession of such heroin necessarily incident to such sale should not be permitted to stand.
The testimony of Armstrong showing prior transactions with appellant was admitted to rebut such theory, and to rebut the defensive theory that appellant had no intent to possess heroin and possessed it only because she was induced to do so by Armstrong.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.