Marshall v. State, 26582
| Decision Date | 11 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 26582,26582 |
| Citation | 159 Tex.Crim. 268,262 S.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | MARSHALL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James H. Moore, Dist. Atty., Lufkin, Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated as a second offender; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $250.
Constable Gaskamp testified that he investigated an automobile collision on the day in question and learned that appellant's automobile and a Mr. Ivey's jeep had been involved in a head-on collision near the town of Zavalla and that both men had apparently been injured. The witness stated that after the ambulance arrived and the appellant had been placed therein he looked in appellant's automobile and found two empty beer cans under the front seat and then opened the turtle or back and there found an empty carton and a full carton of beer.
Mr. Ivey testified that on the day in question an automobile which he was meeting had suddenly veered over on his side of the highway; that in order to avoid being hit he had cut back to his left; that the wreck occurred near the center line; that he was injured and did not see the appellant at the scene of the collision.
Dr. Dan Spivey testified that he saw the appellant in the emergency room at the hospital on the night in question, observed his actions and his manner of speech and detected the odor of alcohol, and gave his opinion that the appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Laboratory technician Culbertson testified that he informed the appellant that he intended to take a specimen of his blood; that the appellant offered his arm in the proper position; and that the sample was taken.
The State proved the proper chain of custody of the blood sample, and toxicologist Chastain testified that such sample contained 2.2 milligrams of alcohol per cubic centimeter of blood, which is also interpreted as .22 per cent. Chastain further testified that such percentage was indicative of intoxication.
The State properly established the prior conviction for a like offense.
Appellant offered several witnesses in his behalf. Among them were his brothers, his sister, his brother-in-law, his uncle, a fellow worker, and several friends of many years' standing in the town of Zavalla. Each of them testified that they did not smell alcohol on appellant's breath following the collision.
Several of the witnesses testified that as appellant lay on the side of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. State
...(driver's license); Trammell v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 543, 287 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.Cr.App.1956) (blood sample); Marshall v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 268, 262 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Cr.App.1953) (blood sample); Beachem v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 272, 162 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Cr.App.1942) (speaking certain words for......
-
Bedwell v. State, 29058
...See Wallace v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 625, 170 S.W.2d 762. Musgrove v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 255 S.W.2d 218 and Marshall v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 268, 262 S.W.2d 491. The fact that the contents of the bottle were not shown to be liquor did not render the testimony inadmissible. Cornelius v......
-
Chamberlain v. State, 28492
...jury along with the other proof on the issue of intoxication. Cornelius v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 598, 252 S.W.2d 163; Marshall v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 268, 262 S.W.2d 491. It was within the discretion of the trial court to allow the introduction of evidence at any time before the argument of......
- Lynch v. State, 26636