Dixon v. State, 27643
| Decision Date | 08 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27643,27643 |
| Citation | 161 Tex.Crim. 626,279 S.W.2d 868 |
| Parties | Andrew James DIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Raymond J. Martin, Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Donald E. Short, County Atty., Wichita Falls, Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public road while intoxicated; the punishment, 60 days in jail and a fine of $250.
The information filed March 26, 1953, alleged that the offense was committed 'on or about the 24th day of March, 1943,' whereas the complaint alleged the date of the offense as on or about March 24, 1953.
The variance, as well as the fact that the date alleged in the information was beyond the period of limitation, is fatal to the information. Art. 415, V.A.C.C.P.; Bayless v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 123 S.W.2d 354; Branch's Ann.P.C., Sec. 435, p. 230; Art. 414, subd. 6, V.A.C.C.P.; Branch's Ann.P.C., Sec. 436, p. 230.
Because of the early adjournment of the term of this Court and in view of the possibility that the date 1943 be shown to be an error in the preparation of the transcript rather than in the information itself, other errors will be discussed.
There is no serious question of appellant's guilt of the offense charged. In fact the record shows that appellant's counsel sought only to secure for him the minimum punishment, which was at the time of the offense a fine of $50.
The evidence showed that no collision occurred and no physical injury was inflicted or property damage done. It is shown, however, that appellant was intoxicated and drove his automobile from one side to the other on the highway upon which he was driving.
In support of his effort to obtain leniency at the hands of the jury, appellant offered a number of witnesses who testified to his good reputation for truth and veracity, as a peaceful and law abiding citizen, and for sobriety.
These witnesses were closely cross-examined, but the State was able to show no fact which would destroy their testimony and no witness testified that the reputation of the appellant in either particular was bad.
After a number of other character witnesses had testified, appellant offered the witness Dell Jones who, on direct examination, testified that he knew appellant's general reputation in the community in which he lived for being a peaceful, law abiding citizen, for truth and veracity and for sobriety, and that it was good.
The witness Dell Jones was then asked by appellant's counsel:
Counsel for the State objected to this question as improper, irrelevant and immaterial and in connection with such objection the following occurred.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State, 45408
...of the offense shows the offense to be barred by limitation. Such allegation is fatal to the indictment. Dixon v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 279 S.W.2d 868, 869 (1955); Bayless v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 123 S.W.2d 354 (1939). The fact that the error or omission is a clerical one is immateri......
-
Donald v. State
...65 S.W. 520; Bradford v. State, 62 Tex.Cr.R. 424, 138 S.W. 119; Herron v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 475, 203 S.W.2d 225, and Dixon v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 279 S.W.2d 868. The state argues in support of the indictment that the crime of conspiracy charged therein is a continuing offense, that......
-
Harrison v. State, 28717
...195 S.W. 853; Bayless v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 123 S.W.2d 354; Murphy v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 193 S.W.2d 820; Dixon v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 279 S.W.2d 868. The judgment is reversed and the cause is Opinion approved by the court. ...
-
Jean v. State, 28509
...State's objection. The exclution of the evidence by the trial court was error requiring a reversal of the case.' See also Dixon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 279 S.W.2d 868, and Jordan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 290 S.W.2d For the error pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the ......