Johnson v. State, 49039
| Decision Date | 08 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 49039,49039 |
| Citation | 517 S.W.2d 536 |
| Parties | Johnny JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leroy Peavy, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Terry Wilson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the misdemeanor offense of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated. A jury assessed the appellant's punishment at confinement in the county jail for one year and a fine of two hundred dollars. The trial court granted the appellant's motion for probation and placed him on probation for one year. The appellant's principal contention is that the evidence is insufficien to support the conviction because the evidence does not show that the appellant drove a motor vehicle on a public highway, and, if he did, the evidence does not show that it was while he was intoxicated.
At approximately 6:00 p.m. September 9, 1972, in response to a call, Highway Patrolman Ronald Edward Berry arrived at the scene of an accident on Wilburforce Street in the Acre Homes Addition north of the Houston city limits. The officer went to the pickup truck which he found in the ditch beside the road. No one was in the vehicle. A number of people were standing on the other side of the street. The officer asked who was driving the vehicle. No one answered, and the officer then asked: 'Were one of you driving this vehicle?' The appellant answered: 'I was driving.' The officer's testimony concerning his investigation at the scene is quoted as follows:
'Q. Would you describe the scene of the accident for us?
'A. Well, it's a small, two-lane blacktop road.
'MR. WILSON (Prosecutor):
Your honor, we would request permission to use the blackboard, so the officer can draw this out.
'Is this a public highway?
The record does not contain the drawing which the witness used while testifying.
The officer said he could not testify at what time the 'accident' occurred. The officer testified to detailed facts on which he based his opinion and stated that when he made his investigation he was of the opinion that the appellant was intoxicated. The officer then took the appellant to Tomball and administered a breathalyzer test which revealed the alcoholic content of the appellant's blood at 8:41 p.m. was .20 percent.
An expert witness testified that in his opinion based on the results of the breathalyzer test and the other evidence the appellant could have been intoxicated several hours prior to the breathalyzer test.
The investigating officer was permitted to testify that his investigation showed that the appellant owned the vehicle.
To sustain a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the evidence must show that the appellant drove the vehicle, Gamboa v. State, 481 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Weldon v. State, 397 S.W.2d 859 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zavala v. State
...in Sinast v. State:11 In the instant case there was no evidence that the engine of the vehicle was still hot, see Johnson v. State, 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), or that the car was still smoking, see Green v. State, 640 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1982, no pet.). Absent ......
-
Scillitani v. State
...to support the jury's determination that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. See Johnson v. State, 517 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Coleman v. State, 704 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd); Stoutner, 36 S.W.3d at 721.3 Therefore, w......
-
Scillitani v. State
...his conviction. See Scillitani v. State, 297 S.W.3d 498, 502–03 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (relying on Johnson v. State, 517 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), Stoutner v. State, 36 S.W.3d 716 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) , and Weaver v. State, 721 S.W.2d ......
-
Nelson v. State, 60967
...that access to the ditch was possible only from the public roads which were mentioned in the testimony. We stated in Johnson v. State, 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Cr.App.1975): "To sustain a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the evidence must show that the appellant drove th......
-
Table of cases
...(Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d), §3:32 Johnson v. State , 504 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974), §11:25 Johnson v. State , 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975), §13:23 Johnson v. State , 43 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001), §11:54 Johnson v. State , 84 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. Crim. App.......
-
Table of cases
...(Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d), §3:32 Johnson v. State , 504 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974), §11:25 Johnson v. State , 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975), §13:23 Johnson v. State , 43 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001), §11:54 Johnson v. State , 84 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. Crim. App.......
-
The Elements of DWI
...Kuciemba has liberalized the standard of proof needed to uphold a conviction. The leading case prior to Kuciemba was Johnson v. State , 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). In Johnson , the arresting o൶cer arrived at the scene of a single vehicle accident around 6 p.m. to ind a pickup tru......
-
The Elements of DWI
...Kuciemba has liberalized the standard of proof needed to uphold a conviction. The leading case prior to Kuciemba was Johnson v. State , 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975). In Johnson , the arresting officer arrived at the scene of a single vehicle accident around 6 p.m. to find a pickup tr......