Owens v. State, 29013
| Decision Date | 08 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29013,29013 |
| Citation | 164 Tex.Crim. 613,301 S.W.2d 653 |
| Parties | Edward Carrol OWENS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.
The state's evidence shows that the appellant was stopped and arrested by State Highway Patrolmen Beggs and Menton while driving an automobile on a public street in the city of Corpus Christi.
Patrolman Beggs testified that he stopped the appellant after following the automobile he was driving for approximately three blocks and observing that it was exceeding the speed limit and being driven on the left side of the road; that after he stopped the appellant he could smell alcohol on his breath and from the manner in which appellant walked and talked expressed his opinion that appellant was drunk. Patrolman Beggs further testified that from the scene of the arrest he took appellant to Memorial Hospital for a blood test and that after appellant had signed a written consent a sample of his blood was taken and put in a vial which was then sealed and identified and that he then took the vial to the Adler Medical Laboratory and placed it in a box beside the door.
Patrolman Menton by his testimony substantially corroborated that of Patrolman Beggs and expressed his opinion that the appellant was intoxicated.
It was further shown that the results of a test made at the Adler Medical Laboratory of the blood sample taken from the appellant showed that its blood alcohol determination was .20 grams per hundred c.c.'s of blood. Dr. John Pilcher testified that a person with such a percentage of alcohol in his blood would be intoxicated.
As a witness in his own behalf appellant admitted that prior to his arrest he had two drinks of vodka but testified he was not intoxicated.
The jury chose to accept the evidence offered by the state and reject that of the appellant and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict.
The record contains certain informal bills of exception however no brief has been filed on behalf of appellant.
Numerous bills present appellant's objections to the state's testimony relative to the taking of the blood sample and the testimony showing the results of the test. Appellant's objection to the testimony was on the ground that he was under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slater v. State
...to testify. The entire argument of both counsel for the State and the appellant is before us and may be considered. Owens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 301 S.W.2d 653. From that and from the bill, we find that appellant's counsel told the jury, 'We told this boy that he was guilty, he agreed that ......
-
Beasley v. State, 33378
...he stated to the jury: '* * * I know this man's not guilty.' Zimmerman v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 630, 215 S.W. 101 and Owens v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 613, 301 S.W.2d 653. We find no reversible error in the court's action in overruling appellant's objection to that portion of the argument of Sta......
-
Owen v. State
...244 S.W.2d 815; Abrego v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 248 S.W.2d 490; Doyle v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 310, 263 S.W.2d 779; Owens v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 613, 301 S.W.2d 653; Monett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 323 S.W.2d The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and no error appearing the ......
-
Kinnebrew v. State, 30596
...284 S.W.2d 734; Sandoval v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 285 S.W.2d 222; Bridges v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 316 S.W.2d 757. In Owens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 301 S.W.2d 653, the entire argument was before us and we considered the objections thereto and found no error. The opinion does not reveal but......