Opinion
No. 15538.
Delivered October 19, 1932.
1. — Possession of Narcotic Drug — Indictment — Specific Drug Named by Statute.
In prosecution for possession of narcotic drug, the indictment which alleged possession of "Marijuana" is sufficient, since that drug is specifically named as such in the statute.
2. — Charge — Statement of Facts — Circumstantial Evidence.
Exceptions to court's charge for failure to charge on circumstantial evidence cannot be appraised in absence of statement of facts.
Appeal from the District Court of Travis County. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Wheeler, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for the possession of marijuana; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Wright Stubbs, of Austin, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for possessing marijuana; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
The record is before us without any statement of facts. Appellant moved to quash the indictment. There was an exception to the court's charge for failure to charge on the law of circumstantial evidence, which we can not appraise because of the absence of a statement of facts.
The Legislature of this state in 1930 enacted what is now article 725a of Vernon's Annotated P. C., wherein the possession of any narcotic drug is penalized. In section one of said act the expression "narcotic drug" is defined as meaning and including, among other things, "Marijuana." We think an indictment sufficient which charges, as in this case, that the accused possessed marijuana, and that there need be no allegation where a specific drug is named, the possession of which is forbidden by statute, that same was a narcotic drug.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.