Joiner v. State, 27588
| Citation | 161 Tex.Crim. 526,279 S.W.2d 333 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27588,27588 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Parties | J. B. JOINER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Jack Ray, G. Gordon Whitman, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Howard M. Fender, Crim. Dist. Atty., Grady Hight, Hugh F. King and Conard Florence, Asst. Crim. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $50.
Three people were riding in the automobile in question at the time involved in this prosecution. Betty Jean Woods was the driver; the appellant, who was the owner thereof, and Mrs. Woods' husband were passengers. There was evidence which indicated that all three people had been drinking. Complaints were filed charging Mrs. Woods and the appellant with driving while intoxicated.
Officers Slaughter and Reeves saw appellant's car being driven in what they described as 'a very erratic manner'. They followed the car for some half mile or so before it pulled over and stopped in a parking area in front of a liquor store without the officers having carried out their intention of attempting to stop the car.
The guilt of appellant is not shown by proof that he was intoxicated, or that he was the driver of the car. The State's case rests upon the theory that Mrs. Woods, who was driving the car at the time in question, was intoxicated and that appellant, who was the owner of the car, acted with her as a principal.
This theory was submitted to the jury by the court in his charge, the court instructing that 'When an offense is actually committed by one of more persons but others are present and know the unlawful intent, agrees to the commission of the offense and aid by acts or encourages by words or gestures, those actually engaged in the commission of the unlawful act, such persons so aiding or encouraging, are principals.'
Applying the law the court instructed the jury that if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Woods drove a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated 'and you further find and believe from the evidence that the defendant J. B. Joiner was present and knew of the unlawful intent of the said Betty Jean Woods, the said defendant Joiner aided by acts or encouraged by words or gestures the said Betty Jean Woods in driving and operating said motor vehicle, then you will find the defendant guilty * * *'
Appellant requested that the jury be instructed to acquit him unless they found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that Mrs. Woods was intoxicated at the time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles
...operating of a vehicle is a general intent crime. (See State v. Miller (1990) 309 Or. 362, 788 P.2d 974, 975-978; Joiner v. State (1955) 161 Tex.Crim. 526, 279 S.W.2d 333, 334; State v. Storrs (1933) 105 Vt. 180, 163 A. 560, 562.)20 The Coker court based its interpretation on North Carolina......
-
People v. Pomeroy
...146 Me. 381, 82 A.2d 629 (1951), Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Uski, 263 Mass. 22, 160 N.E. 305 (1928), Texas, Joiner v. State, 161 Tex.Crim.R. 526, 279 S.W.2d 333 (1955), and Vermont, State v. Storrs, 105 Vt. 180, 163 A. 560 (1933), have held that intent is not an element of the offense. ......
-
Ex parte Ross
...State, 165 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Cr.App.1942). A criminal or unlawful intent is not an essential element of the offense. Joiner v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.App. 526, 279 S.W.2d 333 (1955). The petitioner argues that a reading of Section 1.03(b) 3 in conjunction with Section 6.02, 4 Vernon's Ann.P.C., ma......
-
Burke v. State
...[14th Dist.] 1996, n.w.h.); see also Honeycutt v. State, 627 S.W.2d 417, 424 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Joiner v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 526, 279 S.W.2d 333, 334 (1955). Therefore, the state was only required to prove that appellant was driving a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicat......