Grant v. State, 27986
| Decision Date | 01 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 27986,27986 |
| Parties | Harvel GRANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 60 days in jail and a fine of $200.
Officer Carpenter of the City of Carthage Police Department testified that he observed an automobile weaving badly from one side to the other within the city limits of his city after two o'clock on the night in question and gave chase. He testified that the chase continued at a high rate of speed until the appellant came to a halt at a tourist court in the City of Longview, that he smelled alcohol on the appellant's breath, and expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated. The appellant was placed under arrest and returned to the sheriff's office at Carthage, where he was interviewed by Highway Patrolmen Cooper and Dorrough, who testified that appellant's speech was slurred, that his eyes were red, that he staggered, that his breath smelled of alcohol, and expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated.
The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted having attended a dance on the night in question and having drunk two beers, but denied that he was intoxicated. He stated that he had noticed an automobile following him while he was in the City of Carthage and that, thinking it contained hijackers, he had fled to Longview
The jury resolved the disputed issue of the appellant's intoxication against him, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict.
Bill of exception No. 1 complains of the prosecutor's argument as follows:
The grounds of the objection were that this argument told the jury that 'the mere fact that the defendant was arrested was and is evidence that he is guilty.'
The objection to the argument was sustained, and the court instructed the jury to consider only the evidence.
We have not been favored with a brief,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borjan v. State
...general. Shippy v. State, 556 S.W.2d 246, 257 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Bowman v. State, 446 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Grant v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 444, 286 S.W.2d 422 (1956). As the State notes, this Court has permitted the prosecutor to argue that juries should deter specific crimes by thei......
-
Payne v. State, 28673
...the punishment on some other basis than the facts. In Williams v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 170 S.W.2d 735, and in Grant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 286 S.W.2d 422, 423, we held a similar argument not error because Article 2, Vernon's Ann.P.C., states that one of the objects of punishment is to ......
- King v. State
-
Owens v. State, 30397
...that it is proper for a prosecutor to argue to the jury that one of the objects of punishment is to suppress crime. See Grant v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 444, 286 S.W.2d 422, and Texas Digest, Crim.Law, Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ...