Bright v. State
| Decision Date | 13 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29248,29248 |
| Citation | 165 Tex.Crim. 291,306 S.W.2d 899 |
| Parties | Eugene BRIGHT, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.
The evidence is undisputed that the appellant while driving an automobile on a public highway in the City of Houston collided with an automobile occupied by the prosecuting witness, Raymond Sowell.
In describing the appellant's appearance and condition after the collision Sowell testified that he could smell whiskey or beer on his breath; that he staggered when he walked and expressed his opinion that the appellant was intoxicated.
Officer Gunn, who investigated the accident, testified that when he observed the appellant at the scene some thirty minutes after the collision he could smell a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, that his speech was slurred and he staggered, and expressed his opinion that appellant was intoxicated. He further testified that he was present at the hospital when a blood sample was taken from the appellant with his consent and that he placed the vial containing the sample in a locked box at the police station.
Chemist McDonald testified that he ran a test on the contents of the vial which showed that the specimen contained .29% alcohol and that a person with such percentage of alcohol in his blood would be intoxicated.
As a witness in his own behalf appellant admitted that he was the driver of the automobile on the occasion in question but denied that he drunk. He testified that he had nothing to drink that day and that the blood sample was taken without his consent.
In submitting the case to the jury the court instructed that if they believed from the evidence or had a reasonable doubt thereof that appellant did not voluntarily give his consent to the blood test then they would disregard all testimony concerning the same and not consider it for any purpose.
We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.
The record presents one formal bill of exception in which appellant complains of the action of the trial judge in absenting himself from the courtroom during the questioning of the prospective jurors from which the jury was selected in the case.
It is well settled that the judge should be present at all stages of the proceedings and if he finds it necessary to leave the courtroom he should order a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
...(Henderson, J., dissenting) (absence of trial judge to receive verdict should have rendered conviction null and void); Bright v. State, 306 S.W.2d 899, 900-901 (1957); Pennell v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 401, 299 S.W.2d 699, 700 (1957) (error for judge to absent himself from courtroom during vo......
-
Coddington v. State , D–2008–655.
...People v. Morehouse, 328 Mich. 689, 44 N.W.2d 830, 831–32, (1950)(judge absent during closing argument); Bright v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. 291, 306 S.W.2d 899, 900–01 (Tex.Crim.App.1957)(judge absent during voir dire ); State v. Hinton, 210 S.C. 480, 43 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1947)(judge absent duri......
-
Ramirez v. State
...not shown he was harmed by the substitution in any meaningful way, and therefore has not presented grounds for reversal. Bright v. State, 306 S.W.2d 899, 901 (1957); Medina, 743 S.W.2d at 960; TEX.R.APP.P. We overrule appellant's fifth point of error. In his sixth point of error, appellant ......
-
State v. Singletary
...was no showing that any prejudice resulted from the judge's absence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Bright v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. 291, 306 S.W.2d 899 (Crim.App.1957), reached the same conclusion because there was no showing that anything occurred during the judge's absence which co......