TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jones v. State

Robert Jones v. State

Jones v. State, 297 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 9, 1957
Docket
No. 28,686
Judges
Morrison
Citations
297 S.W.2d 179164 Tex. Crim. 1051957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2047

Opinion of the Court — Morrison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana; the punishment, 3 years.

Kenneth Decker, agent of the narcotics division of the Texas Department of Public Safety, testified that he worked undercover in the city of Abilene for some time prior to and following the date charged in the indictment. He stated that he posed *106 as an underworld character, gambled, and drank with the appellant, and bought marijuana from others in his presence with money furnished him by his division and by the city of Abilene, and that, finally, on January 26 the appellant, who was shining his shoes, asked him if he was “looking for grass.” He stated that he answered in the affirmative and indicated that he was in the' market for five “sticks;” whereupon, the appellant reached in his pocket and delivered five cigarettes to him and that he, in turn, delivered $5.00 to the appellant. The appellant was arrested sometime later.

Expert evidence' was introduced to the effect that the cigarettes contained marijuana.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

The sole question presented for review is whether or not Decker was an accomplice so as to preclude his testimony from being sufficient to support the conviction since the repeal of Section 24(a) of Article 725b, V.A.P.C.

In Lundy v. State, No. 28,534 (this day decided), (page 111, this volume) we passed upon the identical question. In the Lundy case, the state’s only witness was a secretary for the narcotics division of the Houston Police Department, who occasionally did undercover work for the officers of that division and used money furnished by them. The Lundy case is here controlling.

The defense of entrapment is not raised by the evidence, and it is sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 119592026peak 1959 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Alexander v. State325 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959)

Most recent

  1. Alexander v. State325 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list