Nunn v. State

• Decision Date: 12 June 1929
• Docket Number: No. 12181.,12181.
• Citation: 26 S.W.2d 648
• Parties: NUNN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 648

26 S.W.2d 648

NUNN v. STATE.

No. 12181.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1929.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1930.

Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; Tom J. Ball, Judge.

Oscar Nunn was convicted of driving a motor vehicle on public highway while intoxicated, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Tom Whipple, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated; punishment, a fine of $100 and sixty days in jail.

The evidence seems in a condition of conflict, revolving around the question as to whether the appellant was intoxicated or not. There is no dispute of the fact that he was driving an automobile upon a street in the incorporated town of Waxahachie, and while so doing he collided with two other cars. A number of witnesses testified that he was drunk at the time. A number of other witnesses who saw him shortly before the collision testified they observed nothing out of the ordinary in his conduct. The question being whether he was intoxicated or not, and this being an issue of fact for the jury, and they having decided it adversely to appellant, under the authorities we do not feel at liberty to revise their action. Nelson v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 210, 261 S. W. 1046; Scoggins v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 546, 266 S. W. 513; Williams v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 271 S. W. 628; Stewart v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 199, 299 S. W. 646.

Appellant requested a special charge instructing a verdict of not guilty upon the ground that the law under which this prosecution was had is so vague and indefinite as to make it obnoxious to the provisions of our Constitution, and he claims the court erred in refusing said requested charge. This but constituted an attack upon the law under which this prosecution was had. In the above authorities we have expressly upheld this statute and do not deem it necessary to discuss the matter further than to refer to the authorities.

There also appear in the record exceptions taken to the court's charge, which are as follows:

"1st. Defendant excepts generally to the charge because same is based on Article 802 of the Penal Code and same is not an article in compliance with Articles 1 and 6 of the Penal Code.

"2nd. Specially excepting he says that the Article 802 is vague, indefinite, uncertain and does not, in plain language, describe or define the offense attempted to be charged.

"3rd. The statute...