McClinton v. State, 32041
| Decision Date | 15 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 32041,32041 |
| Citation | 338 S.W.2d 715,170 Tex.Crim. 141 |
| Parties | Ernest Ray McCLINTON, Appellant. v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Reid & Reid, by T. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.
Wm. A. Thomas, County Atty., by Nelson Quinn, Asst. County Atty., Abilene, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 9 months in jail and a fine of $150.
Appellant was stopped and arrested by two city officers while driving his automobile upon a public street in the City of Abilene. The officers testified that before stopping appellant, they followed his automobile for seven blocks during which time they observed it, on more than one occasion, cross over the center stripe. The officers testified that after they stopped the appellant they could smell alcohol on his breath; that he staggered when he walked, his speech was incoherent, and both expressed the opinion that at such time the appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. A third officer who observed appellant when he was brought to the police station also expressed his opinion that at such time appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
As a witness in his own behalf, appellant testified that on the night in question he had consumed four or five beers prior to his arrest but denied that he was drunk. Two witnesses called by appellant testified that they had been with appellant on the night in question prior to his arrest and stated that in their opinion he was not at that time intoxicated.
The jury resolved the disputed issue of intoxication against the appellant and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict.
Appellant complains of certain questions propounded to him on cross examination by state's counsel which elicited testimony from him which showed that he had been previously charged with the offenses of drunkenness and driving while intoxicated. Appellant insists that by such cross examination the state was permitted, in violation of Art. 732a, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., to improperly impeach him by showing that he had been charged with offenses which had not resulted in a final conviction for either a felony offense or one involving moral turpitude.
The record reflects that appellant made no objection to the testimony until after the questions had been propounded to him and by him answered.
After the last question was asked by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cravens v. State
...the defendant did not specifically object to the wrongful introduction of the prior conviction. Id. at 97; See also, McClinton v. State, 338 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Cr.App.1960). The court emphasized that appellant's request that the court consider the matter out of the presence of the jury was not......
-
Van Sickle v. State
...must specifically object to the wrongful introduction of a prior conviction to preserve the error for review. McClinton v. State, 338 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Cr.App.1960). No such objection was made in this record. Appellant requested that the court consider the matter outside the presence of a jur......
-
Calhoun v. State, 43665
...there was no objection and no request for jury instruction or a motion for a mistrial. We perceive no error. See McClinton v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 141, 338 S.W.2d 715. The appellant first injected the fact of Mathis' revocation of probation into the case and there is no showing in the recor......
-
Morris v. State
...testimony about the photos used for identification purposes did appellant offer any objection. No error is presented. McClinton v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 141, 338 S.W.2d 715. The appellant further claims that the Court committed reversible error in permitting the District Attorney to place in......