Fowler v. State, 28127
| Decision Date | 07 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28127,28127 |
| Citation | 162 Tex.Crim. 513,287 S.W.2d 665 |
| Parties | Clifford Morris FOWLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jarmon & Spann, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.
The sole basis for the claim for reversal arises from the following.
Deputy Sheriff Herbert Eugene Ault testified on direct examination that he investigated a collision on Air Port Road and there observed appellant and engaged him in conversation. He testified that from his manner of speech; the fact that he was unsteady on his feet; the odor of beer about him and in the pickup, he formed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated and stated that there was no doubt that he was.
He further testified that he arrested appellant at the scene and placed him in jail.
Thereafter, Officer Ault was asked: 'Is there any doubt in your mind that Mr. Fowler was intoxicated, in your opinion?'
Objection on the ground that the question was repetitious was overruled, and the witness answered: 'In answer to that question, is it permissible to use the defendant's statement?'
The attorney for the State replied
Appellant's counsel then moved that the witness' statement be stricken as prejudicial and the court stated: 'Let me state this to the jury:
At appellant's request the jury was then retired and appellant moved for mistrial because of the statement of the witness and the remarks of the court.
The record shows that the court overruled the motion at the time, but suggested that during the lunch hour the matter would be further considered, and after the recess, announced that the State would be permitted to finish its case and appellant's counsel might 'brief further on it' at their convenience; that he was 'going to carry the motion forward.'
If appellant's counsel ever obtained a ruling on his motion for mistrial we fail to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...in response to an inquiry, or while under arrest does not render the testimony inadmissible. Spann v. State, supra; Fowler v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 513, 287 S.W.2d 665; Heath v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374, (375) S.W.2d 'See also, Pilcher v. State, (Tex.Cr.App.,) 503 S.W.2d 547; Tezeno v. State,......
-
Hill v. State, 49435
...in response to an inquiry, or while under arrest does not render the testimony inadmissible. Spann v. State, supra; Fowler v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 513, 287 S.W.2d 665; Heath v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d See also, Pilcher v. State, 503 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Tezeno v. State, 484 ......
-
Harryman v. State
...an inquiry, or while under arrest does not render the testimony inadmissible. Spann v. State, supra (448 S.W.2d 128); Fowler v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 513, 287 S.W.2d 665; Heath v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d See also Pilcher v. State, 503 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Tezeno v. State, 484......
-
Walker v. State
...a confession, which are a part of the res gestae are admissible though he be under arrest when the statements are made. Fowler v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 513, 287 S.W.2d 665; Lamkin v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 99, 123 S.W.2d 662.' And this court has, on several occasions, held that statements whic......