Flack v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 31476,31476 |
| Citation | 332 S.W.2d 704,169 Tex.Crim. 201 |
| Parties | William Edwin FLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Chas. H. Dean, Plainview, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment 10 days in jail and a fine of $250.
Appellant's appeal is predicated upon the sole contention that the court erred in refusing to give his requested charge on circumstantial evidence.
The State's witness, Mildred Tull, testified that on the day in question she went with the appellant in a pick-up truck to Hale Center to get her sister-in-law, Mrs. Jessie Duncan; that after they picked up Mrs. Duncan at the home of a Mrs. Anderson the three drove around and while appellant was driving the pick-up on a county road the vehicle ran into a barrow ditch. Highway patrolmen R. C. Dunn and Carl Mullins testified that on the day in question they came upon the damaged pick-up around 12:45 P.M. parked on the side of the public road and at such time the two women were seated in the pick-up and appellant was on the outside. Each patrolman testified that he observed the appellant's conduct, demeanor and speech at the time and based upon his observation expressed his opinion that at such time appellant was intoxicated.
Mrs. Juanita Anderson, to whose home the appellant and his companion, Mildred Tull, had gone that morning testified that when she saw the appellant around 10:30 A.M. she observed his appearance and that he 'reeled back and forth and nodded.' She expressed her opinion that at such time the appellant was intoxicated. Deputy Sheriff Clinton Dyer testified that he observed the appellant after he was brought to jail by the two patrolmen and expressed his opinion that appellant was at that time intoxicated.
Under the evidence presented the court did not err in refusing the appellant's requested charge on circumstantial evidence.
The testimony of the State's witness, Mildred Tull, that appellant was the driver of the pick-up constituted direct evidence on that issue. The testimony of Mrs. Anderson, in which she expressed her opinion that appellant was intoxicated when she observed him at her home prior to his arrest and of the two highway partolmen and the deputy sheriff who stated that in their opinion he was intoxicated when they observed him at the time of and after his arrest was tantamount to direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilder v. State
...283 S.W.2d 936; Hayes v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 660, 288 S.W.2d 771; Reneau v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 321 S.W.2d 886; Flack v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 332 S.W.2d 704; Clark v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 456, 342 S.W.2d 332; Ratliff v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 13, 343 S.W.2d 465; Bailey v. State, 1......
-
Thompson v. State
...opinion testimony of the officers, which reflected that appellant was intoxicated, was tantamount to direct evidence. Flack v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 332 S.W.2d 704; Hayes v. State 162 Tex.Cr.R. 660, 288 S.W.2d 771; Kimbro v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 249 S.W.2d 919; Richardson v. State,......
- Dunlap v. State