Mozley v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28325,28325 |
| Citation | 290 S.W.2d 518,163 Tex.Crim. 250 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Fred Gurley MOZLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
No attorney on appeal, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, forty days in jail and a fine of $100.
The state's evidence shows that the appellant was arrested around midnight while driving his automobile on a public street in the city of Dallas. C. E. Ellis, the arresting officer, testified that he stopped the appellant after he had observed his automobile weaving from the right to the left and going off the road; that he could smell a strong odor of alcohol on appellant's breath; that he was unsteady on his feet; and that, in his opinion, the appellant was intoxicated. Officer Ellis further testified that he offered the appellant an intoximeter test at the scene of the arrest, which he took by blowing up a balloon, and that the test showed appellant to be intoxicated.
Officer Allen, who was dispatched to the scene of the arrest, testified that he observed appellant sitting in the squad car; and, based upon his observations of him, expressed his opinion that the appellant was drunk.
Dr. Morton F. Mason, toxicologist for the City and County of Dallas, upon being called as a witness for the state, testified that he received, at his office, from Lieutenant Alexander of the Dallas Police Department, an intoximeter test in a container bearing the appellant's name and the date on which it was taken; that a mechanical analysis of the test was performed by assistants directly under his supervision; and that he made the final calculations of the results of the test, which showed that the blood alcoholic concentration of the person who took the test was .262%. He further testified that a person with such a blood alcoholic concentration is under the influence of alcohol.
Appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he had only consumed one-half a bottle of beer on the night of his arrest, and denied being intoxicated. He further testified that at the time of his arrest he was taking a man by the name of Turner home who was intoxicated and who did pay a fine for being drunk on such occasion.
Appellant called as a witness Mrs. Earl Lagow, who testified that the appellant and his companion, Turner, had been to her home shortly before the arrest, and that, at that time, the appellant was not drunk, but that Turner was intoxicated.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. State
...court properly admitted testimony offered by a non-expert police officer that the defendant was intoxicated); Mozley v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 250, 290 S.W.2d 518, 520 (1956) (holding that the trial court did not err in permitting the officer who arrested the defendant to testify that the def......
-
Ritchie v. State, 28598
...opportunity to observe the facts upon which he bases his opinion. Kendrick v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 97, 238 S.W.2d 964, and Mozley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 290 S.W.2d 518. By Informal Bills of Exception Nos. 16 and 19, appellant insists that the court erred in permitting testimony that, prior ......
-
Carter v. State
...having observed appellant's actions and appearance, was properly permitted to express his opinion as to intoxication. Mozley v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 290 S.W.2d 518. We find no reversible error in the court's action in permitting the Witness Kirkland to testify on his re-direct examinat......
-
Preston v. State, 42537
...are made by another chemist in the laboratory may testify from records of the laboratory as to the results thereof. Mozley v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 290 S.W.2d 518; Kent v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 671; Dagley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 394 S.W.2d 179; Clifton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39......