Holding v. State, 43260
| Decision Date | 02 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 43260,43260 |
| Citation | 460 S.W.2d 133 |
| Parties | Richard Lee HOLDING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John L. Sieren, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., James Henley Morgan, Truman Power, Jack Q. Neal and John Garrett Hill, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The appeal is from a conviction for murder without malice, committed by driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, as denounced by Article 802c, Vernon's Ann.P.C. The punishment was assessed by the jury at five years.
The record reflects that appellant drove his automobile across the median of the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike and killed James Northcutt, the deceased, as alleged in the indictment, and two others.
In the first ground of error, appellant contends that the State did not prove that the collision occurred on a public highway.
Eyewitnesses testified that the collision occurred on the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike. Officer James Billings, a Texas Highway Patrolman, testified that he investigated the collision in question and that it occurred on the Turnpike, a public highway in Tarrant County.
The first ground of error is overruled.
Appellant next contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence a diagram of the scene of the collision prepared by Patrolman Billings. The complaint is that the diagram showed the purported movement of appeallant's vehicle which was not observed by the officer, who arrived at the scene several minutes after the collision.
Officer Billings' testimony shows that he had been a patrolman for seven and one-half years, and one of his chief duties was accident investigation. He had made numerous investigations and reports of automobile collisions. He testified about the directions the cars were travelling and the point of impact without objection. He further testified that he made the diagram in question based on his investigation at the scene, taking into consideration debris, direction of travel, the point of impact and the location of the automobiles when he arrived.
From the testimony it appears that the diagram was an illustration of the officer's testimony, based on the physical facts which he observed.
This Court has often held that a police officer, after a proper showing of his qualifications, can give an opinion concerning the physical facts that are within his personal knowledge. Johnson v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 355 S.W.2d 191; Morris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 495; Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 427 S.W.2d 892.
To explain the testimony of a witness and render it more intelligible, it is proper and legitimate to introduce diagrams. 23 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, Section 324, p. 468, n. 10. The Court did not err in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...a police officer may give an opinion concerning physical facts he has observed which are within his experience. Holding v. State, 460 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). The record herein reflects that Milligan had past experience investigating murder scenes and based upon that experience, was co......
-
Lopez v. State
...S.Ct. 1538, 36 L.Ed.2d 199 (1973). The use of diagrams in a criminal case to help explain testimony has been approved. Holding v. State, 460 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Videotape with sound has been approved in Texas and in Federal courts to film unknowing defendants committing crimes in ......
-
Overton v. State, 45334
...into evidence. Burrell v. State, 487 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Jackson v. State 477 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Holding v. State, 460 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Chapin v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 320 S.W.2d 341, 344 In appellant's ground of error #5, he alleges that the court erred......
-
Jackson v. State
...refused to admit these drawings into evidence. Diagrams are admissible to explain and clarify a witness' testimony. Holding v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 460 S.W.2d 133. These drawings were not offered as exact scale replicas of the scene but were offered merely to show the layout of the apartment......
-
CHAPTER 4.I. Motion Authorities
...admissible under public records exception to hearsay rule). c. Diagrams Made at the Scene and Computer Animations Holding v. State, 460 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (no error admitting diagram made at scene). Venegas v. State, 560 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, no pet.) ("A co......