Sosa v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Posey v. State

    515 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 4 times
    In Posey v. State, 515 S.W.2d 286, 287 (Tex.Crim.App.), however, the Texas court overruled Durham and held the defendant, who was in a similar position, guilty of selling narcotics even though he acted only as agent for the buyer, also an undercover agent, and received no benefit whatsoever.

    This Court has held that a charge on accommodation agent is not required where, as here, the court's charge on entrapment fully protects the appellant's rights. Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849; Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 99; and Gonzales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 505 S.W.2d 267. Further, I am not persuaded that the statute, by definition, eliminates the concept of accommodation agent.

  2. Gonzales v. State

    505 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    Even assuming a charge on accommodation agency would have been proper, the court's charge on entrapment fully protected appellant's rights. Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849, and Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 99. Ground of error number three urges that the Court erred in refusing a charge on accomplice witness.

  3. Kemp v. State

    502 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    Compare Senn v. State, 494 S.W.2d 836, where we stated that similar testimony raised the issue, and the court properly charged thereon. Further, the error was not cured by a charge on the issue of entrapment as it wan in Sosa v. State, 494 S.W.2d 849. The trial court also rejected appellant's requested charge on entrapment. For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

  4. Ames v. State

    499 S.W.2d 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 24 times
    In Ames v. State, 499 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), we stated that 'Any variance between the purport clause and the tenor clause as to whose act the instrument purports to be is fatal.

    The record before us, approved by counsel for appellant, reflects that a timely filed objection or written request instruction was not presented to the trial court for consideration. The record must reflect that objection and requested instructions are filed in a timely manner; therefore, appellant's grounds relating to the court's charge have not been properly presented for our review. Mosley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 490 S.W.2d 842; Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849. See Articles 36.15 and 36.16, V.A.C.C.P.

  5. Brooks v. State

    499 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 4 times
    In Brooks, the court correctly declined to replay a videotape previously replayed because the foreman's second request did not show that the jury was still in dispute as to the testimony it had just reviewed.

    ' In Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849, this Court on May 23, 1973, held that even if the issue of accommodation agent is raised by the evidence, the failure of the court to charge thereon is not reversible where the court charged on entrapment. We overrule appellant's first contention.