Loftin v. State
| Decision Date | 24 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 35638,35638 |
| Citation | 366 S.W.2d 940 |
| Parties | Marcus Moore LOFTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mays & Jacobs, Corsicana, for appellant.
Jimmy Morris, County Atty., Corsicana, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of fifty dollars.
Clayton Smith, the arresting officer, testified that he observed the appellant's automobile weaving as he drove it along the left hand side of the highway, and that after stopping the appellant he smelled the odor of alcohol on his breath and noticed that his walk was unsteady. He expressed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated. He further testified that after they arrived at the jail he '* * * saw a card that came from his (appellant's) wallet which said in effect that he was diabetic and was not intoxicated, and that in case his behavior seemed to be unusual or abnormal, emergency measures written on the back of the card were to be followed.' After reading the directions he asked the appellant if he wanted to go to a hospital and appellant replied that he did not.
Another witness who saw the appellant driving on the highway and also at the jail testified to substantially the same facts as Officer Smith.
A search of appellant's automobile revealed one partially full and three full bottles of whiskey in the trunk, and another bottle about one-half full of whiskey and a flask containing a small amount inside the front of the car.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he was driving the car, but denied that he was intoxicated or had drunk any alcoholic beverage during the day he was arrested. He testified that for several days he had shown a sales exhibit for his company in Houston and was returning to Fort Worth in his employer's car when arrested; that his employer must have placed the whiskey in the trunk because he knew nothing about it; that there was a pint of whiskey in a bag on the seat which turned over and spilled, causing the odor the officer smelled when he was arrested.
He further testified that he could not drink whiskey because he was a diabetic and usually took two injections of insulin each day and followed a rigid diet but he had been unable to do either for several days which caused his exhausted and worn out condition, and his fear that he was going into shock before he could get home and receive treatment. He stated that he showed the officer at the scene of the arrest his card which revealed that he was a diabetic, and at the jail the officer again saw his diabetic card...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...Affirmative submission of every defensive issue raised by the evidence. Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 541; Loftin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 366 S.W.2d 940; Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 361 S.W.2d 716. The majority today abolish that rule by holding, in effect, that if the ......
-
Cravens v. State, No. 2-04-448-CR (TX 3/9/2006)
...Ann. art. 36.15 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Mendoza v. State, 88 S.W.3d 236, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Appellant relies on Loftin v. State, 366 S.W.2d 940 (Tex. Crim. App. 1963), to support his argument that the trial judge erred in refusing to submit his requested charge. In Loftin, a driving w......
-
Hill v. State, 57371
...Affirmative submission of every defensive theory raised by the evidence. Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 541; Loftin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 366 S.W.2d 940; Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 361 S.W.2d 716. This rule applies with equal force to defensive theories regarding the ......
-
Noyola v. State, No. 07-03-0473-CR (TX 12/14/2004)
...of the trial court is affirmed. 1. In reaching our conclusion, we have not overlooked appellant's reliance upon Loftin v. State, 366 S.W.2d 940, 941 (Tex.Cr.App. 1963). We simply agree with the State that the continued viability of Loftin is suspect considering subsequent decisions by the C......