Chamberlain v. State, 28492
| Decision Date | 24 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28492,28492 |
| Citation | 294 S.W.2d 719,163 Tex.Crim. 529 |
| Parties | Forrest B. CHAMBERLAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $200.
The state's testimony shows that the appellant, while intoxicated, was steering a Nash station wagon upon a public highway, and that the Nash's engine was not operating but that it was being pushed by the use of another car.
Appellant while testifying in his own behalf admitted that he was steering the car while it was being pushed along the highway at the time in question but denied that he was intoxicated or had drunk anything intoxicating until after the engine in the Nash quit running. He stated that following the failure of the engine he took some medicine which contained codeine for a cough and then drank some liquor but couldn't say how much and was 'dopey' from the cough medicine when the officers arrived.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he was driving a motor vehicle at the time in question.
The testimony of the witnesses for the state and that of the appellant referred to the Nash station wagon as a 'car.' This testimony sufficiently shows that the appellant was driving a motor vehicle. Spears v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 20 S.W.2d 1063.
Appellant further contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he was driving and operating a motor vehicle because the Nash station wagon was not being propelled under its own power but was being pushed by the use of another car.
In Rogers v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 602, 183 S.W.2d 572, under a similar state of facts, we said:
'The only question presented by the facts seems to be whether a car being pushed by another car, being steered by an intoxicated person, comes within the meaning of the punitive statute, Vernon's Ann.P.C. art. 802, which prohibits such intoxicated person 'driving and operating a motor vehicle.' * * *
'We think appellant, who was guiding this automobile in motion, the engine of which was not running, was guilty of operating the same, and his intoxication was proven and undisputed.'
The rule found in 5 Am.Jur., Automobiles, Sec. 772, was quoted in support of said holding.
The case of the State v. Hester, 196 Tenn. 680, 270 S.W.2d 321, 47 A.L.R.2d 568, also is in point with the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jordan
...(1954) 196 Tenn. 680, 270 S.W.2d 321, 47 A.L.R.2d 568; Rogers v. State (1944) 147 Tex.Cr. 602, 183 S.W.2d 572; Chamberlain v. State (1956) 163 Tex.Cr. 529, 294 S.W.2d 719; State v. Tacey (1930) 102 Vt. 439, 150 A. 68, 68 A.L.R. 1353.) A prosecution was also upheld where a defendant steered ......
-
Mester v. State
...vehicle was pushing it, held to constitute physical control of a motor vehicle under drunk driving statute); Chamberlain v. State, 163 Tex. Crim. 529, 294 S.W.2d 719 (1956)(when intoxicated motorist was steering his car and the engine was not running, but he was being pushed on the highway ......
-
Turner v. State
...This testimony is sufficient to establish that the vehicle involved in the accident was a motor vehicle. See Chamberlain v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 529, 294 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1956). Turner's sole point of error is The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ...
-
Colorado Div. of Revenue v. Lounsbury, 86SC129
...vehicle was pushing it, held to constitute physical control of a motor vehicle under drunk driving statute); Chamberlain v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 529, 294 S.W.2d 719 (1956) (when intoxicated motorist was steering his car and the engine was not running, but he was being pushed on the highway ......