Cook v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 40961,40961 |
| Citation | 423 S.W.2d 313 |
| Parties | Hoover L. COOK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bill Mann, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Edward M. McDonough, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted, under Art. 802b, Vernon's Ann.P.C., of the subsequent offense of drunk driving, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for a term of five years.
Imposition of sentence was suspended by the court and appellant was placed on probation upon certain terms and conditions.
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction at the time he was placed on probation. Art. 42.12, Sec. 8, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
The record does not contain a transcription of the court reporter's notes.
One bill of exception appears in the record, which complains of the trial court's refusal to permit appellant to show a conflict in the testimony given by Officer Buchanan at the trial with that given by him at the examining trial.
The bill was approved by the court, with certain qualifications. Notice of the court's qualification of the bill was given to appellant's counsel, as required by Art. 40.09--6(a), C.C.P., but no bystanders bill was filed by appellant.
As qualified, the bill reflects that Officer Buchanan testified at the trial that, after his arrest, appellant told him he had drunk two six packs of beer and that, in his examining trial tetimony--a copy of which was among the papers filed in the cause, the officer testified that in the conversation with appellant after his arrest appellant did not disclose a definite number of beers he had consumed. In his qualification to the bill, the court certified that, upon the trial, appellant sought to show 'by improper method and predicate' a conflict in the officer's testimony, to which 'improper impeachment methods' state's counsel objected, and such objection was by the court sustained. The court further certified that several other attempts were made by appellant to show conflict in the officer's testimony, 'all being improper, in form and predicate,' and the court in each instance sustained the state's objection.
In his brief, appellant urges one ground of error, which is as follows:
'The Appellant was not accorded due process of law as guaranteed under the United States and Texas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Castellano
...affirming the denial of relief, the Court of Appeals relied upon Huffman v. State, 479 S.W.2d 62 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and Cook v. State, 423 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). The Court of Appeals assumed the habeas judge's finding of perjury was supported by the record but held that Huffman and C......
-
Grismore v. State, 08-81-00079-CR
...photograph was introduced as Defendant's Exhibit No. Twelve. The contradiction in testimony does not establish perjury. Cook v. State, 423 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). The additional photograph was displayed to the jury, and the complainant's inability to identify the Appellant in that pho......