Ayala v. State
| Decision Date | 03 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34075,34075 |
| Citation | 352 S.W.2d 955,171 Tex.Crim. 687 |
| Parties | Sabino AYALA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[171 TEXCRIM 687] J. P. Moseley, Dallas, for appellant.
[171 TEXCRIM 688] Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Gene Ater, H. D. Nicholson, Corsicana, Phil Burleson, Assts. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 6 months in jail and a fine of $50.
The evidence was undisputed that on the night in question, the appellant while operating his automobile upon McKinney Avenue, a public street in Dallas County, drove into the rear of an automobile parked on the right side of the street and caused it to in turn collide with the rear of another vehicle parked in front. Three officers, who came to the scene of the accident and observed appellant, testified that at such time he was unsteady on his feet; his speech was incoherent; that they could smell a strong odor of intoxicants coming from him and expressed their opinion that at such time he was intoxicated.
Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant admitted driving his automobile on the occasion in question and stated that the cause of the collision was when the steering wheel 'came loose.' Appellant testified that he had drunk no alcohol that day and denied that he was intoxicated. Appellant's wife, upon being called as a witness, corroborated his testimony that he had not been drinking prior to the time he left home.
The jury resolved the disputed issue of intoxication against appellant and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict.
Appellant's sole claim of error on appeal relates to certain questions propounded to him on cross-examination by State's counsel.
On his cross-examination, appellant was asked: 'In other words, the officers were mistaken when they say that you had a strong odor of intoxicating beverage coming from your mouth?' Appellant objected to the question on the ground that it was asking him to compare his testimony to that of another witness and placed him under the obligation to call 'somebody a liar.' After the objection was by the court overruled, appellant answered: 'Yes sir, they were mistaken.'
[171 TEXCRIM 689] Thereupon counsel for the State asked: 'They were mistaken when they talked about your speech being incoherent and the fact that----.'
Appellant again...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Temple v. State
...improper veracity questions was not reversible); Mason v. State, 449 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex.Crim.App.1970) (same); Ayala v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 687, 689, 352 S.W.2d 955, 956 (1962) (same); Salcido v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 572, 574, 342 S.W.2d 760, 761 (1961) (per curiam) (same). By denying that......
-
Kirkpatrick v. State
...It is well settled that a witness may not give an opinion as to the truth or falsity of other testimony. Ayala v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 687, 689, 352 S.W.2d 955, 956 (1962) (cited in Black v. State, 634 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982, no pet.)); accord United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336......
-
Temple v. State Of Tex.
...veracity questions was not reversible); Mason v. State, 449 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (same); Ayala v. State, 171 Tex. Crim. 687, 689, 352 S.W.2d 955, 956 (1962) (same); Salcido v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 572, 574, 342 S.W.2d 760, 761 (1961) (per curiam) (same). By denying that he ......
-
James v. State , 02–09–00334–CR.
...rule that a witness may not give an opinion as to whether another witness is telling the truth, see Ayala v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 687, 689, 352 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tex.Crim.App.1962), in arriving at its holding that an expert's testimony concerning a complainant's propensity to tell the truth ......