Osborn v. State, 25634
| Decision Date | 16 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 25634,25634 |
| Citation | 246 S.W.2d 208,157 Tex.Crim. 61 |
| Parties | OSBORN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. E. Martin, Abilene, for appellant.
Reed Ingalsbe, Asst. County Atty., Abilene, George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was assessed a fine of $200.00 and 30 days in jail for driving on a public highway while intoxicated.
The evidence sufficiently presents a case for the jury's consideration and supports their verdict. The appeal is based on several bills of exception. The first one is merely an argument on the force of the evidence and is not considered as a bill.
Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of questions concerning a ring which appellant wore at the time of his arrest. The answer would have been that he was wearing a Masonic ring and that he was not a Mason. The court sustained appellant's objection to this evidence when made and instructed the jury, in accordance with the request, not to consider the same. No reversible error is shown by this bill.
Bill of Exception No. 3 complains of a question asked the appellant, while testifying in his own behalf, as to whether or not he had been previously arrested for driving while intoxicated. Objection was made to the question and sustained by the court. The answer was never given. The court then gave written instruction to the jury not to consider the same.
Bill of Exception No. 4 complains of the closing argument of the assistant county attorney in making a statement as to how they investigated a case and brought a charge, in the conduct of prosecutions generally. Objection was made to this argument and the jury was instructed not to consider the same. The court further qualifies the bill by showing that the defense attorney had obtained evidence from police officers and from the defendant that the defendant had been arrested by the police department on previous occasions for drunkenness, and then said that his client was a man who did drink, that the police knew it and it was natural to find what they were looking for and they would be expecting him to be intoxicated whether he was or not. The discussion of the attorney as to their procedure was not altogether foreign to this matter, though we cannot say the argument was proper in the state of the record. We believe that the harm done by such argument, if any, was removed by the charge given.
Bill of Exception No. 5 complains of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial