The offense is the unlawful sale of marijuana; the punishment, ten years.
The indictment alleged the sale to have been made to Dan Evans. He testified, as did L. D. Stringfellow, Detective of the Narcotic Section of the Special Service Bureau, Dallas Police Department, that he was a member of the Dallas Police Department on November 26, 1956, on which date he received $5.00 from Detective Stringfellow about 2:80 P.M. with instructions.
Dan Evans, the evidence shows, was a colored person; a graduate of Prairie View A & M College and former Assistant Boy’s Secretary of the Moreland Branch, Y.M.C.A. He had been a policeman for some four or five months and was working as an undercover officer.
Evans testified that accompanied by one Edward Jordan, described as a user of narcotics and an underworld character who answered to the name “Little Fat,” he met appellant, also colored, on a street in North Dallas and “told him he wanted to buy some stuff” which, the witness explained, in the language of the underworld meant marijuana.
Appellant replied that he would have to go some place and get it, and the three went to the car Evans was using and, directed by appellant, proceeded to an address in South Dallas.
Appellant asked “how much we wanted” and Dan Evans “told him that I wanted a nickels worth of cigarettes,” which he testified meant in the language of the underworld five dollars worth.
Appellant said “he would let us have five cigarettes for five dollars providing that he would help us smoke one” and “we agreed.”
Appellant then left the car and in five or ten minutes returned and dropped four cigarettes in the car and Dan Evans paid him $5.00.
The four cigarettes were delivered to Detective Stringfellow the following morning. The evidence shows that they were thereafter delivered to Chemist Sidney Lee who tested them and found their contents to be marijuana.
*290The fifth cigarette which appellant produced was smoked by appellant and Jordan.
Appellant contends that the evidence shows Dan Evans to be an accomplice witness as a matter of law.
Lundy v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 111, 296 S.W. 2d 775; Jones v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 105, 297 S.W. 2d 179; and Augero v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 265, 298 S.W. 2d 822, cited by the state, are deemed authority against such contention.
Appellant would distinguish these cases by reason of Dan Evans agreeing that the appellant and Jordan smoke the fifth cigarette; his failure to arrest them then and there for doing so in his presence, and to then arrest appellant for selling the marijuana.
We can well agree that the conduct of an undercover agent engaged in ferreting out violations of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act leaves much to be desired and may even be termed reprehensible. Yet the agent is not an an accomplice witness so long as he does not bring about the crime, but merely obtains evidence to be used against those engaged in the traffic.
That Evans’ purpose was to obtain evidence against sellers of marijuana is demonstrated by the fact that he acted under instruction of Detective Stringfellow who furnished the $5.00, and delivered the cigarettes to him. The fact that appellant was not arrested until several weeks later, and not then by the undercover agent, is consistent with Evans’ status as a purchaser for evidence purposes rather than an accomplice.
Appellant did not testify and the jury rejected his defense of alibi. We would not be warranted in substituting our finding for that of the jury even though we should agree that there was strong evidence that appellant was at another place when Evans testified he purchased the marijuana. Stapler v. State, 120 Texas Cr. Rep. 263, 47 S.W. 2d 837, presents a similar conflict in the evidence which was resolved by the jury.
Appellant’s complaint as to Dr. Lee’s testimony regarding the effect of the use of marijuana presents no error calling for reversal. The only objection was as to the qualification of the witness to testify, which qualifications were well established.
The evidence sustained the allegation of the indictment that *291the sale was made to Dan Evans. If Jordan was a joint purchaser there would have been no variance. McGee v. State, 112 Texas Cr. Rep. 450, 17 S.W. 2d 50, overruling Asher v. State, 102 Texas Cr. Rep. 162, 277 S.W. 1099; Stapler v. State, 120 Texas Cr. Rep. 263, 47 S.W. 837; Petty v. State, 121 Texas Cr. Rep. 218, 53 S.W. 2d 300; Metaxes v. State, 127 Texas Cr. Rep. 313, 75 S.W. 2d 888; and Colley v. State, 140 Texas Cr. Rep. 34, 143 S.W. 2d 597.
The judgment is affirmed.