Campbell v. State, 30392
| Decision Date | 04 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 30392,30392 |
| Citation | 320 S.W.2d 361,167 Tex.Crim. 321 |
| Parties | Claude Dee CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[167 TEXCRIM 322] No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.
Highway Patrolman Rutherford testified that on the day in question he observed an automobile make a U-turn in a no passing area narrowly avoid a collision, and that he turned around and gave chase; that the appellant, who was the driver, smelled of intoxicants, spoke in a slurred manner, walked unsteadily, and expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he had nothing intoxicating to drink on the day of his arrest. He also called one Armstrong, who was with him on the day in question and who also testified that the appellant had not been drinking.
The State, in rebuttal, called Ruth Earls, who testified that she served the appellant three beers at noon of the day on which he was arrested. She testified further that the witness Armstrong had offered her $10 to testify that the appellant was not intoxicated.
The jury resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find it sufficient to support the conviction.
Bill of exception No. 1 complains that the court allowed the State to reopen its case and prove venue. No error is presented. Tarver v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 655, 2 S.W.2d 439; Fullbright v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 101 S.W.2d 571; and Martin v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 364, 271 S.W.2d 279.
Bill of exception No. 2 related to proof by the witness Earls that Armstrong had offered her $10 to testify favorably to the appellant. The careful trial court properly instructed the jury that they might consider such testimony solely as it might show interest on the part of Armstrong. Burnaman v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 361, 159 S.W. 244, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 1001, is authority for the rule that such evidence was admissible to show motive, bias or interest[167 TEXCRIM 323] of the witness. See also Jones v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 137, 180 S.W. 669.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. State
...it admissible was for the purpose of touching upon the motive of the witnesses to testify as they had.11 But see Campbell v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 321, 320 S.W.2d 361 (1959), wherein it was properly established that a defense witness had offered $10.00 to a prosecution witness to testify the......
-
Mitchell v. State
...a fact witness and did not testify on the merits of this case, no reversible error is shown. Appellant's reliance on Campbell v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 321, 320 S.W.2d 361, and Parsons v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 524, 278 S.W. 444, is misplaced. In Campbell v. State, supra, a witness testified th......
-
Massengale v. State
...appellant objected asserted some detail of an extraneous offense or retaliation. Under the holding of the Court in Campbell v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 321, 320 S.W.2d 361 (1959) those questions were permissible here, just as allowing the fact that a defense witness had offered money to a State......
-
Oliver v. State
...may be thereafter permitted and considered' and the same case is cited and in the Supplement is cited also a Texas case, Campbell v. State, Tax.Cr.App., 320 S.W.2d 361. Then for a general discussion of the matter see 53 American Jurisprudence 112, Secs. 128 and When Dock Estepp and Larry Ar......