*1 318 recognized validity equal protection such of the law. The com-
holding. Hilts v. 283 plaint is without merit. (Tex.Cr.App.1972). we must Finding discretion, no abuse judg- consider what Fariss not did decide.1 At ment is affirmed. page the Fariss court stated: “The Court Appeals of Criminal has MORRISON, J., concurs in results. held that a proceeding revocation not type of prosecution’ ‘criminal in which the defendant can demand a trial
by jury. Hood v. See
662 (Tex. Cr.App.1970) and Wilson v.
to be testimony. their Bennett v.
State,
Rutledge
(Tex.
Cr.App.1971); Hood v.
662 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). complaint first is overruled. alleges
He next dichoto- Texas, system
mized court in two its resort,
courts of last is unconstitutional denies the citizens of this State due
process equal protection of the law. upon bases this notion occasionally the Texas Crim
inal Supreme Court of
Texas are express called their
opinions virtually the same issues.2
Appellant cites no authоrity support allegation, validly nor is he able to how
demonstrate sys dichotomized deprives him,
tem individually, of his con guarantees
stitutional process of due (1971). See standpoint. highlights Tex.C.Rev. titutional For proposed modernizatiоn of the Texas Admittedly, system court system, see 35 Texas B.J. Texas has come under considerable criti- (1972). cism, though necessarily from a con- *2 erred
Appellant сontends that requested refusing submit to jury evidence. to on Canibano, Undercover Narcotics Officer Department, testified the Dallas Police A.M., he July on that at about Mc- persons in was in conversation County Asa Dallas Cree Park approached. Canibano McBride1 he had that the “stuff” informed McBride days before was “bad couple a sold him Canibano, McBride According stuff.’’ to good mari- then that stated buy some of that?” juana, to do want and Mc- replied, “let me see it” Canibano “Well, stashed, I have it Bride get it.” going go am to have appellant was stand- that further testified place ing from some ten tоok foregoing conversation same. place participate in the and did not McBride, go told “Well After Canibano it,” get it and me see McBride wаlked let said, go get “Lets appellant and over to a McBride left in stuff.” they returned a short together. After car thereafter, approachеd Cani- time McBride to the appellant “walked off bano again by Canibano was not seen side” and question. evening in McBride and on the belonging to a сar Canibano walked to car, McBride, McBride reached got in pulled plastic bag pants and in his out a containing substance found to be a to Canibano who huana and handed same Tessmer, L. Goran- W. Ronald gave bill. McBride a dollar Dallas, son, for Wade, Atty., George O. Henry between circum The distinction Dallas, Asst. Dist. Washington, lat and direct evidence stantial A. and Robert fact directly to ultimate applies ter Austin, Huttash, Asst. State’s evidence proven, while circumstantial be the State. of a minor fact which inference demonstrates logical proven. Ramos v. therein. cited and cases DAVIS, Commissioner. urges that The State appeal from a conviction for This is an virtue of principal penalty was possession of marihuana. The sale, his negotiations for the probated. time years at five assessed were distant cousins. and Asa The record reflects “The fact circumstances McBride had accompanying McBride after point said, strongly accused of returning stuff” and “Lets crime does not relieve the court of with McBride who a short time thereafter duty charging law of circumstantial possession. in his evidence where The court instructed presumption deducible inference or from *3 elim prinсipals, law but this did not the Haney circumstances in evidence.” necessity on cir the for instruction inate evi
cumstantial evidence if circumstantial proven having Possession been appellant’s dence was relied on to establish evidence, we find the court principal. as a Scelles failing сommitted error in reversible 623; Tex.Cr.R. 358 S.W.2d Mc give requested charge appellant’s thereon. Cormick v. Tex.Cr.R. State, supra; Denny See Ramos v. S.W.2d 436. Tex.Cr.App., Arsi 473 S.W.2d appel- There is no direct evidence that aga Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d possessed ever the lant contraband. State, supra. Scelles State contends that was direct evi- there judgment For the reasons the appellant dence which showed that made and the remanded. reversed cause agreement accompany, acquire transport and the contraband. Of- Opinion approved by the Court. testimony ap- ficer Canibano’s the was thаt pellant standing was DOUGLAS, Judge (dissenting). away at the time he entered into agreement buy with McBride to majority opinion follows and they talking huana and that were in a nor- Forfar v. mal When tone voice. Canibano was subsequent cases and the This cited. appellant if spoken asked a nor- writer dissented in each of these cases and tone, words, mal have could heard his is still of the that the rule estab- answered, There believe so.” Forfar, supra, lished in in- testimony was present that others were in correct and should not be followed. the area. present case, In the charged the court There is no testimоny appel- principals law and instructed the any lant ever heard conversation about that mere alone will not con-
marihuana, contrаband, any possessed saw principal. stitute one a The court defined any contraband, anyone talked to about possession in charge аs follows: contraband, or any was con- acquired traband was or delivered. care, control, “Possession is the actual the ultimate fact which the State had to custody management thing prove, possession contraband, of the possessed. It is that condition of fact could be inferred from thе person power can exercise the minor possession facts of of marihuana property. Ownership by appellant’s companion, proximity necessary possession, to constitute and is to the conversation where the not an essential element thereof. The agreemеnt for purchase made, possession exclusive; need not more statement of McBride to appellant, “Lets one possession than stuff,” depar- followed thing at the same time.” ture of and McBride in an auto- mobile, their return a short time thereafter such charge rights ap- Under of the delivery pеllant adequately protected. were It McBride to the officer. would no purpose repeat serve useful the reasons the above mеntioned dissent-
ing opinions. in Ra- the dissent
mos v. be seen show majority
should require
should not on circumstan- possession
tial evidence in of contraband cases gives where the trial court an ade- Brewer, Lacy, Kenneth Glenn B. San J. quate possession definition of or otherwise Antonio, requires to believe that an accused knowingly possessed Buter, contraband. Ted Dist. Roberts Cantu, Attys., Asst. Antonio G. Antonio,
San Huttash, Robert A. Asst. State’s *4 Austin, for the State. DeLUNA, Appellant,
B.A. MORRISON, Judge. driving vehicle offense motor of without the own- value $200.00 consent; punishment, (3) three er’s years. of is “that the sole contention prove the automobile was failed to
State ($200.00) over the Two Hundred value legal competent Dollars evidence”. of the automobile testified owner purchased objeсtion that he without three the theft automobile months before that in his for about $495.00 value his car on the date the fair cash of the theft about $350.00. Tinsley
In S. said: W.2d sufficiеnt to reflect record view the “We mower of the lawn the fair market value the value was over $50.00 This court alleged in the as indictment. proving that if the manner has held approval of value did not meet defendant, incumbent it was the time objection him voice testimony. Lar the introduction 284, 248 S. kin Morris W.2d Tex. Ward No Cr.App.,