Summary
In Carter v. State, 51 S.W.2d 316, we held that a conviction for aggravated assault would be sustained under an indictment charging rape, though the evidence established the offense of rape.
Summary of this case from Tackett v. StateOpinion
No. 15126.
Delivered June 8, 1932. Reported in 51 S.W.2d 316.
1. — Narcotic Law — Evidence.
In prosecution for possessing morphine, the evidence supports the verdict.
2. — Narcotic Law — Venue.
Proper venue will be presumed, unless the record makes manifest that the issue was properly raised in the trial court.
3. — Judicial Knowledge.
Court of Criminal Appeals judicially knows that Houston is county seat of Harris County.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris County. Tried below before the Hon. Whit Boyd, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for the possession of morphine; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Albert Stein, of Houston, for appellant.
O'Brien Stevens, Criminal District Attorney, and E. T. Branch, both of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for possessing morphine; punishment, two years in the penitentiary. See article 720, P. C.
The facts in this case show without dispute that appellant was in possession of morphine in the city of Houston. Appellant contends, as we understand him, that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. We find nothing in the record bearing out such contention. Appellant's car was searched with his consent, and a quantity of morphine found therein which he admitted to be his. This was put before the jury without objection. We find nothing indicating any defensive theory.
It is contended that the venue was not proved. One of the presumptions on appeal is that the venue was established, and such presumption is binding upon us unless it appears from the record that this was made an issue in the court below, by which we understand is meant that the matter of venue must have been an issue during the trial of the case and before the verdict was reached. No such issue was made in the instant case. However, it appears from the testimony without dispute that the place where appellant was found in possession of the drug was in the city of Houston. We know judicially that Houston is the county seat of Harris county.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.