Ferguson v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 26510,26510 |
| Citation | 261 S.W.2d 721,159 Tex.Crim. 169 |
| Parties | FERGUSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
L. D. Harris, Ralph D. Coppock, Houston, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, Temple, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted for the offense of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated; punishment was assessed at six months in jail.
Witnesses for the state testified that appellant, on the 26th day of August, 1952, was driving her automobile upon and along Homestead Road, a public highway, in Houston, Harris County, Texas; that her 'automobile had been going from side to side of the road; that she had run other cars approaching her off onto the shoulder of the road;' and that her automobile collided with a truck. The witnesses further testified that they 'smelled her breath, saw her walk, and heard her talk; that her breath smelled strongly of alcohol; that she was unsteady on her feet, and could not talk plainly;' and based upon these facts, it was their opinion that appellant was drunk.
A witness for appellant testified that she 'was afflicted with a heart ailment and suffered blackouts as a result thereof.'
By Bill of Exception No. 1, appellant contends that the court erred 'in appointing an attorney to represent her without her consent or approval.'
This bill of exception is qualified by the court as follows: 'The appointment of counsel for defendany was done with her consent and approval.'
Appellant accepted the bill of exception as qualified and is bound thereby.
By Bills of Exception Nos. 2 and 3, appellant complains of the action of the trial court in refusing to grant her amended motion for new trial which was supported alone by affidavits attached thereto.
The verified amended motion for new trial and the supporting affidavits were sworn to before one of appellant's attorneys. Under such circumstances, neither the verified amended motion for new trial nor the affidavits in support thereof can be considered since counsel in the case was not authorized to take such affidavits. In Burnett v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 477, 165 S.W. 581, 583, we said: '* * * This but illustrates that in justice to counsel, as well as in the interest of public policy, counsel in a case should not be permitted to take testimony in a case, or swear witnesses to affidavits or other papers in a case.' See also Horton v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 89, 154 S.W. 227; 31 Tex.Jur. 346; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bearden v. State
...to nor incorporated in a properly verified motion. Martin v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 334 S.W.2d 796 (1960); Ferguson v. State [159 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 261 S.W.2d 721] supra; Cartwright v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 344, 255 S.W.2d 878 (1953); Burnett v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 477, 165 S.W. 581 (1914)."......
-
Gilbert v. State, 27873
...therefore insufficient. Art. 545, C.C.P.; Reeves v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 208, 167 S.W.2d 176, and cases there cited; Ferguson v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 261 S.W.2d 721. In any event, there is no merit in the exception to the overruling of this motion. Sowers v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 2......
-
Farrar v. State
...240 S.W.2d 763; Miers v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 572, 251 S.W.2d 404; Bonewald v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 521, 251 S.W.2d 255; Ferguson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 261 S.W.2d 721; McKelvey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 263 S.W.2d 774; Alvarez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 264 S.W.2d The bill shows that at the time ......
-
Stubbs v. State, 43074
...Tex.Cr.R. 595, 336 S.W.2d 156. Such an affidavit sworn to before one of appellant's attorneys cannot be considered. Ferguson v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 261 S.W.2d 721, and cases cited; Reeves v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 208, 167 S.W.2d 176, and cases cited; Reno v. State, The trial court did ......