Gamez v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 33768,33768 |
| Citation | 171 Tex.Crim. 639,352 S.W.2d 732 |
| Parties | Islas Valdez GAMEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Billy Hall, Littlefield, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $350.
Officer W. E. Briles testified that on the night in question, while on patrol duty in the City of Hereford, he heard a noise which sounded like wood 'pulling away' from a building; that he then observed a pickup truck backing up and driving away from a cafe building which he pursued across Highway 385 and on Higgins Street for approximately one-half mile, during which time it was being operated 'all over the road' with no lights; that when he brought the pickup to a halt he ascertained that appellant was the operator of the vehicle. Officer Briles, in describing appellant's actions and appearance after being stopped, testified that he could smell beer on his breath; that he talked with a 'thick tongue'; that he 'staggered' and expressed his opinion that appellant was intoxicated. He further testified that he found some beer in the pickup appellant was driving. Officer Donald R. Metcalf, who was called to the scene, corroborated Officer Briles in his description of appellant's actions and appearance and expressed his opinion that appellant was intoxicated.
It was shown that following his arrest, appellant was taken to a hospital where, with his written consent and in the presence of Officer Briles, a blood specimen was taken from him by a nurse, put in a test tube and after being sealed, placed in a container and mailed to the laboratory of the State Department of Public Safety at Lubbock. Officer Briles identified State's Exhibit No. 2 as the test tube which he mailed.
Chemist and Toxocologist H. Wayne Anderson, of the Department of Public Safety, identified State's Exhibit No. 2 as a test tube which he received in the U. S. mail at the laboratory in Lubbock. He stated that after breaking the seal on the tube he performed a test on the blood specimen therein which showed that the blood contained .15% alcohol by weight. Chemist Anderson, after reviewing the recognized levels of alcohol concentration in a person's blood which the National Safety Council and American Medical Association deem a person intoxicated, expressed his opinion that the person from whom the blood specimen was taken was intoxicated.
Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant admitted driving the pickup truck on the night in question and having consumed two beers, but denied that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Appellant also called character witnesses who testified that his general reputation for being a peaceable and law abiding citizen and for truth and veracity was good.
By bill of exception No. 1 appellant complains of the court's action in overruling his motion to quash the complaint and information on the ground that it was not alleged that he drove the motor vehicle upon a public highway. In charging the offense, the complaint and information alleged that appellant operated the motor vehicle upon a public road. Art. 802, Vernon's Ann.P.C., in defining the offense of driving while intoxicated, makes it unlawful to drive or operate a motor vehicle upon a public road or highway. A 'public road' has been held to be a 'public highway' within the meaning of the statute. Anderson v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 195 S.W.2d 368. We find no error in the bill.
Bill of Exception No. 2 presents appellant's objections to the court's charge. Appellant objected to the charge as a whole on the ground that the charge as drawn, 'shifts the burden of proof and requires the defendant to prove his innocence.' While appellant's objection was too general to specifically point out where the charge was erroneous, we observe that the charge as submitted to the jury properly placed the burden of proof upon the State. Appellant further objected to the charge on the ground that in submitting forms of verdict to the jury the court did not submit all of the forms of verdict which could be reached by the jury in the cause. The court submitted two forms of a verdict in the charge, one for a verdict of guilty and the other for a verdict of not guilty. No other form was requested by appellant. The forms of verdict submitted were sufficient.
Bill of Exception No. 4 presents appellant's contention that the trial court committed reversible error when during the voir dire examination of the jury panel he made the following statement:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pringle v. State
...v. State, 661 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1983, review ref'd); Corbitt v. State, 445 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Gamez v. State, 352 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Crim.App.1961). Further, even had Officer Laase not had probable cause to arrest for driving while intoxicated, she had probable cause t......
-
Williams v. State, 44910
...v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 479, 316 S.W.2d 743 (1958); Teter v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 489, 316 S.W.2d 756 (1958); Gamez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 639, 352 S.W.2d 732 (1961). Third, we observe that the general question addressed to the jury panel for the case as a whole which produced the answers ......
-
Quintana v. State, 41959
...284, cert. den. 384 U.S. 966, 86 S.Ct. 1599, 16 L.Ed.2d 678; Lehman v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 354 S.W.2d 586; and Gamez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 639, 352 S.W.2d 732. Because appellant had not used all his peremptory challenges at the times when his complained-of challenges for cause were ......
-
Young v. State
...his innocence. Such objections are too general to comply with Art. 36.14, C.C.P., and to present error for review. Gamez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 639, 352 S.W.2d 732; Washington v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 349 S.W.2d No error appears in the charge which was calculated to injure the rights o......