Arnold v. State
| Decision Date | 13 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27543,27543 |
| Citation | 161 Tex.Crim. 344,277 S.W.2d 106 |
| Parties | Homer Sylvester ARNOLD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Lawrence Arnim, Henry J. Lamb, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State,
DICE, Commissioner.
Upon a trial before the court, a jury being waived, appellant was found guilty and assessed the minimum punishment for the misdemeanor offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated.
The State's witness, Robert L. Smith, testified that he first saw appellant 'when he sideswiped a car in front of me'; then saw him hit the left rear bumper of a standing car, and come toward the witness, causing him to drive on to a railroad track.
Smith further testified that he followed appellant's car, 'tooting my horn, trying to get everybody to look up and get out of his way', and appellant's car, with the left front tire flat 'jumped the left curb'--'sideswiped another car'--'kept pulling to the left'--'he caught a door handle' on the suspenders of a man working in the street--'chased another car on the curb'--hit the curb where a child was playing in the street, and stopped the car in front of his home--
Smith also testified that he called the officers and, after their arrival, saw appellant come out of his house and start toward his car, then go back in the house; that he observed appellant when he again walked out the door and talked to him and 'he was very slurry.' He didn't know. His actions were very funny--he staggered--was barefooted and in old clothes--'he tried to hold on to a tree, and kept feeling for it and missing 'it.' Also he heard this conversation between appellant and the officer: 'The officer said, He said, 'I didn't even know it.' He admitted,
Smith testified that he had seen many people who were intoxicated, that he smelled alcohol on appellant's breath, and based upon his experience and his observation of appellant, he expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated.
Appellant complains of the testimony of the officers who arrested him in his home, and who expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated. He also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miffleton v. State, 626-87
...Atkins v. State, 423 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Milligan v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 584, 343 S.W.2d 455 (1961); Arnold v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 344, 277 S.W.2d 106 (1955). See also Tolbert v. State, 743 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), and cases cited therein. This is also the rule in the feder......
-
Deason v. State
...on appeal on the ground of the admission of incompetent evidence if sufficient proper evidence was admitted to sustain the judgment. Id. 277 S.W.2d at 107. [emphasis added] Id. In other words, even if improperly admitted evidence is considered by the trial court, a reversal of a conviction ......
-
Polk v. State
...or not challenged, is sufficient to support its judgment. E.g., Keen v. State, 626 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Arnold v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 384, 277 S.W.2d 106 (1955). The harm potentially flowing from an accused's failure to object to a question patently calling for objectionable matte......
-
Dalgleish v. State
...on or even considered the inadmissible evidence in reaching its verdict or in determining punishment. Tolbert cites Arnold v. State, 161 TEX.CR.R. 344, 277 S.W.2d 106 (1955), stating "when a cause is tried before the court and there is nothing to show that the judgment was based upon inadmi......