Milligan v. State
| Decision Date | 22 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 33007,33007 |
| Citation | 343 S.W.2d 455,170 Tex.Crim. 584 |
| Parties | Willie Robert MILLIGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Guinn, Guinn & Truex, El Paso, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.
Trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury.
Officers Blackstock and Blanco testified that, while on the lookout for a certain automobile, they saw appellant driving one which fit the description traveling at a high rate of speed on Dyer Street but that, because of the five o'clock traffic, they were unable to overtake him until after they had followed him a mile and a half; that during their pursuit they saw his automobile cross over the center stripe on several occasions, which made it necessary for the oncoming traffic to drive off on the shoulder in order to avoid a head-on collision. They stated that when they did overtake appellant he had pulled off on the shoulder of the road and was seated in the driver's seat and that just before they arrived a woman had made a U-turn and pulled in behind appellant's automobile. They testified that 'he smelled very strongly of some alcoholic beverage' and that when they began to question him he became very belligerent and wanted to fight 'and the more we talked the madder he got'; that a half-full fifth of whiskey was between his legs and that they placed him under arrest because in their opinion he was intoxicated. They stated that they carried him straightway to the hospital, where appellant consented in writing to the taking of a blood test, stating that 'he would prove he wasn't intoxicated,' and that a test was taken, the container sealed and signed by Blackstock, and turned over to their lieutenant, and they identified the container and its contents at the trial.
Stella Rangel, an employee of the hospital, testified that appellant 'was pretty drunk' and that she saw the blood sample being taken from appellant's arm and that she heard him 'cussing' around the hospital.
Chemist and toxicologist Hannah of the Department of Public Safety testified that he received the blood sample introduced in evidence, tested the same and found it to contain .21 per cent of alcohol, which was indicative of intoxication.
Appellant and his witnesses testified to an entirely different state of facts. His cook testified that as she was driving in to town she saw appellant seated in his automobile on the side of the road, that she made a U-turn and pulled in behind him, and that the officers did not arrive for some time thereafter, at which time they found a full bottle of whiskey with the seal unbroken. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miffleton v. State, 626-87
...391 (1973); Larocca v. State, 479 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Atkins v. State, 423 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Milligan v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 584, 343 S.W.2d 455 (1961); Arnold v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 344, 277 S.W.2d 106 (1955). See also Tolbert v. State, 743 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.Cr.App.19......
-
Riggins v. United States, Civ. A. No. 4-496.
...chapter." 11 Minor v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 242, 219 S.W.2d 467; Baker v. State, 154 Tex. Cr.R. 116, 225 S.W.2d 828; Milligan v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 343 S.W.2d 455; Brown v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 485, 358 S.W.2d 12 This instrument is styled, "A Response in Rebuttal Toward the Claims of ......
-
Tolbert v. State
...556 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Larocca v. State, 479 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and cases cited therein; Milligan v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 343 S.W.2d 455 (1961); Arnold v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 344, 277 S.W.2d 106 (1955), and cases cited therein. See also Flowers v. State, 482 S.W.2......
-
Rodgers v. State
...trial court ignored inadmissible evidence in cases tried before him, Bowers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 929, and Milligan v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 343 S.W.2d 455. For this reason, we need not pass upon the regularity or the sufficiency of the prior convictions which were admissibl......