Fletcher v. State, 28628
| Decision Date | 09 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 28628,28628 |
| Citation | 164 Tex.Crim. 321,298 S.W.2d 581 |
| Parties | Howard FLETCHER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kelley, Looney, McLean & Littleton, Charles F. Weaver, Edinburg, for appellant.
James S. Bates, Criminal Dist. Atty., Edinburg, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 90 days in jail and a fine of $50.
Highway Patrolman Solomon testified that at approximately 2:14 P.M. on the day in question, in response to a call, he went to a filling station located approximately a mile from the international bridge in the city of Hidalgo and there observed the appellant seated in the driver's seat of an automobile. He stated that he could smell a strong odor of alcohol about the appellant, noticed that his eyes were bloodshot, his hair 'rumpled up' and his clothes disarranged, that he staggered when he walked, and concluded that he was intoxicated. The appellant and his companion were arrested, the companion placed in the city jail, and the appellant carried to the hospital, where a specimen of his blood was taken with his consent and, when analyzed, showed that it contained .255 per cent of alcohol.
Expert opinion testimony was introduced to show that such percentage of alcohol in the blood would indicate intoxication. In this connection, attention is directed to the findings of the American Medical Association as set forth in our opinion in Jones v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 29, 261 S.W.2d 161.
Plant Quarantine Inspector Dunn and U. S. Customs Collector Moreno testified that the appellant drove his automobile across the international bridge at approximately 2:00 P.M. on the day in question and his automobile was inspected by them. Dunn state, '* * * I think I can tell when a man is drunk, just from my experience, and in my opinion the man was intoxicated.' Dunn called the McAllen police as the appellant drove away.
The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he had driven a friend to Mexico to buy a bottle of Tequila, that he had two tequila sours while in Mexico, and then drove back to the filling station where he was arrested. He stated that he and his friend sat in his automobile at the filling station 'something like twenty-five minutes' and partook of the contents of the bottle of tequila. Appellant admitted that his companion was intoxicated but denied that he was as he crossed the international bridge.
The appellant has filed a lengthy brief in which he advances a great many contentions, some of which he admits he has been unable to find authority to support.
His first contention is that the arrest of the appellant was illegal because the arresting officer did not see the appellant drive his automobile. The officer had the authority, and it was his duty, to arrest the appellant for being drunk in a public place. Article 212, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Cook v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 238 S.W.2d 200; Morgan v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 262 S.W.2d 713; Rent v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 326, 268 S.W.2d 674. The fact that the officer thought that he was then in possession of sufficient information to authorize him to arrest the appellant for driving while intoxicated could not affect his authority or his duty to arrest for being drunk in a public place.
The conclusion thus reached obviates the necessity of discussing the appellant's next contention that the evidence concerning the blood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Fossler
...not see the defendant drive his car, since the defendant may still be subject to a public intoxication charge. Fletcher v. State,164 Tex.Cr.R. 321, 323, 298 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1957). The Fifth Circuit has recognized that where a defendant was arrested for the "wrong" offense, the arrest is no......
-
Pringle v. State
...public intoxication, thereby validating the arrest. United States v. Fossler, 597 F.2d 478, 482 (5th Cir.1979); Fletcher v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 321, 298 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1957); Appellant's initial point of error is overruled. In his second point of error, appellant complains that the infor......
-
Jones v. State
...just because the officer labels the offense "driving while intoxicated." See Warrick, 634 S.W.2d at 709; Fletcher v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 321, 298 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tex.Crim.App.1957); Reynolds, 902 S.W.2d at 560. Where the crime for which a person is arrested (such as DWI) is closely relate......
-
Bell v. State
...of sham or fraud. Id. at 516 (citing Warrick v. State, 634 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982); Fletcher v. State, 298 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957); Reynolds, 902 S.W.2d at 560). An officer's subjective conclusions about whether the defendant's intoxication presente......