Keith v. State, 46219
| Decision Date | 11 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46219,46219 |
| Parties | Harry Murth KEITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Harris E. Lofthus, Amarillo, for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the misdemeanor offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment 3 days confinement in the County jail and a fine of $100.00.
The appellant's sole ground of error is that the court improperly charged the jury on the presumption of intoxication under the provisions of Article 802f, Sec. 3(a), Vernon's Ann.P.C. That article provides that a chemical analysis showing the presence of 0.10% Or more by weight of alcohol in a defendant's blood is admissible in evidence and may give rise to a presumption of intoxication.
The appellant's complaint concerning the charge is not before us for consideration because no written objection to the court's charge was made as required by Article 36.14, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. and see e.g. Woods v. State, 479 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and Williams v. State, 477 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Nothing is presented for review.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyra v. State, 51276
...on the issue of voluntariness requested. 1 Nothing is presented for review. Langford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 532 S.W.2d 91; Keith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 187. Appellant's fourth ground of error contends that the trial court made a comment on the weight of the evidence in its instru......
-
Langford v. State
...in a timely manner as required by Art. 36.14, V.A.C.C.P. Appellant's complaint is not before us for review. See, e.g., Keith v. State, 499 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and the cases cited The judgment is affirmed. Opinion approved by the Court. ...
-
Campbell v. State, s. 49744
...in the record. Article 36.14, V.A.C.C.P. requires objections to the charge be in writing. Nothing is presented for review. Keith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 187. The judgments are ROBERTS and ODOM, JJ., concur in the results. ...
-
Wolff v. State
...fundamental error to fail to track the language of Tex.Pen.Code Ann. § 2.01, relating to presumption of innocence) and Keith v. State, 499 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (where the Court held that appellant's contention that the court improperly charged the jury on presumption of intoxication......