Branford v. State, 28848
| Decision Date | 09 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 28848,28848 |
| Citation | 165 Tex.Crim. 314,306 S.W.2d 725 |
| Parties | Frank Tom BRANFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Saub, Walker & Hammond, King C. Haynie, Houston [on appeal only], for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for negligent homicide of the second degree; the punishment, two years in jail.
The state's pleadings alleged, its proof showed, and the jury found that the appellant while operating his automobiles in excess of sixty miles per hour upon a public highway drove it into the rear of a truck travelling in the same direction and the impact thereof caused the death of the driver of the truck.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that a front [165 TEXCRIM 315] tire on his automobile blew out which caused him to lose control of it and collide with the truck the deceased was driving.
The court charged the jury that if they believed that the blowout of the tire on appellant's automobile caused it to collide with the truck driven by the deceased to find him not guilty.
The jury resolved the issues of fact against appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict.
In his brief appellant presents and relies upon two contentions for a reversal.
First, he contends there is a fatal variance between the allegations in the information that his automobile collided with a truck and the proof that it collided with a motor vehicle, to wit: a Dodge pickup.
Appellant, while testifying referred to the motor vehicle with which he collided as being a 'truck'. In view of his testimony no variance appears.
Appellant next contends that the court erred in refusing to permit him to prove by the witness, James H. Parrish, that he, as an attorney, had filed a damage suit in the amount of $110,000 against the appellant in behalf of the deceased before his death and expected to continue to prosecute the same in behalf of the widow and heirs of the deceased on the ground that the widow and a son of the deceased, having testified, he was entitled to show their interest and motives as affecting their credibility as witnesses.
Ora Merchant, widow of the deceased, and Robert Merchant, a son of the deceased, each testified and their testimony shows that they arrived at the scene soon after the collision but neither testified to any fact incriminating or showing any culpability of the appellant with the offense here charged. Neither of said witnesses was asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deloney v. State
...occurrence for which the defendant is being prosecuted. Blake v. State, 365 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex.Crim.App.1963); Branford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 314, 306 S.W.2d 725, 726 (1957). However, the cases that have held such evidence to be admissible are limited to those circumstances where the co......
-
Palermo v. State
...Cox v. State, 523 S.W.2d 695, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Blake v. State, 365 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex.Crim.App.1963); Branford v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. 314, 306 S.W.2d 725, 726 (1957). In these cases, however, the following common characteristics were present: (1) the evidence was presented during......
-
Jolly v. State, C14-83-693CR
...on behalf of the state against an accused, then the fact the witness has brought a civil suit, too, is admissible. Branford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 314, 306 S.W.2d 725 (1957). R______ W______'s testimony on the videotape is her direct testimony. Had appellant called her to the stand, he cou......
-
Blake v. State, 35417
...for which the accused is being prosecuted. 45 Tex.Jur. 77, Sec. 222; Vyoral v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 34, 224 S.W. 889; Branford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 314, 306 S.W.2d 725. The prosecuting witness, Stahlman, gave testimony most damaging to appellant and, under the record, the court's refusal ......