Ramirez v. State
Decision Date | 11 January 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 27845,27845 |
Citation | 289 S.W.2d 251,163 Tex.Crim. 109 |
Parties | Manuel RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ray Stevens, Austin, for appellant.
J. R. Owen, County Atty., Georgetown, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for murder without malice, the indictment being drawn under Art. 802c, V.A.P.C. The jury assessed the minimum punishment of two years in the penitentiary.
The error assigned is the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the corpus delicti and to support the jury's verdict.
Appellant's counsel, by brief and oral argument, contends that there is not sufficient evidence to corroborate appellant's confession that he was the driver of the automobile, and insufficient evidence to prove that appellant was intoxicated. These contentions will be considered in the order mentioned.
The evidence reflects that on January 22, 1954, at about 2:00 or 2:30 P. M., a green 1952 model Chevrolet was involved in a collision with a 1953 Dodge coupe driven by Mrs. Jewel Reynolds Ruble. Mrs. Ruble was critically injured in the collision and died a few hours after the accident as a result of such injuries. The collision occurred at the intersection of the McNeil Road and U. S. Highway 183, in Williamson County, Texas. Immediately prior to the accident the 1952 Chevrolet was traveling in a westerly direction on the McNeil Road and Mrs. Ruble was driving her Dodge coupe in a northerly direction on U. S. Highway 183. The Chevrolet did not stop at a stop sign facing the McNeil road, but, instead, entered the intersection at a speed of 25 or 30 miles per hour and was driven out onto U. S. Highway 183 and directly in front of the Dodge coupe driven by Mrs. Ruble.
For a distance of some 49 feet before reaching the stop sign on the McNeil Road the view was clear and unobstructed for a distance of some 700 feet south on U. S. Highway 183. Immediately prior to the accident the Dodge coupe driven by Mrs. Ruble was traveling at a speed of about 40 to 45 miles per hour.
Appellant, on March 29, 1954, made a voluntary statement of which the following is a part:
W. C. Curtner, a truck driver, witnessed the collision. He identified appellant as the occupant of the Chevrolet who had a bad wound on his head and was bleeding in the face.
Any question of the sufficiency of the evidence to show that appellant was the driver of the Chevrolet car, as he stated in the confession, was removed when appellant offered the following testimony in connection with his Exhibit 1.
Appellant's Counsel: 'We offer this in evidence, Your Honor.
'(The picture referred to was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1, and same is hereto attached.)'
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 shows a rear view of the 1952 Chevrolet resting in an upside down position, at the scene of the collision.
As to the evidence showing that appellant was intoxicated, we have first his confession that he had been drinking.
He received a severe injury as a result of the collision and, when observed by the Witness Curtner, was lying down flat on his back and 'there was nobody walking around except two of the colored men.'
Curtner made it clear that he was not testifying that anyone was drunk, but said that he detected the odor of alcohol on the breath of appellant and all of his companions except one of the colored men whose hand was badly cut.
Appellant was placed in an ambulance and taken to Brackenridge Hospital where, shortly after 5 o'clock, a specimen of blood was taken from him with his consent.
Analysis of this blood revealed an alcohol content of 1.3 miligrams of alcohol per cubic centimeter of blood, or otherwise stated, .13 percent of alcohol in the blood.
The State's Witness Roland E. Tullis, chemist and toxicologist for the Texas Department of Public Safety, after his qualifications to testify on the subject were established, stated that he made the analysis showing such alcohol content and gave the following testimony.
* * *
* * *
The foregoing expert testimony as well as the taking and result of the blood test for the alcohol concentration is quite similar to that in Greiner v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 479, 249 S.W.2d 601.
The witness Tullis further...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hankins v. State
...Hollingsworth v. State, 419 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); King v. State, 396 S.W.2d 409 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Ramirez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 289 S.W.2d 251 (Tex.Cr.App.1956).In 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 821, p. 262, it is written:"... And it has been held that where a conviction r......
-
Wilson v. State
...Hollingsworth v. State, 419 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); King v. State, 396 S.W.2d 409 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Ramirez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 289 S.W.2d 251 (Tex.Cr.App.1956). See also 24 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 742, p. 422; 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 821, p. In applying the general......
-
Anders v. State
...745; Hollingsworth v. State, (1967) Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 854; King v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 396 S.W.2d 409; Ramirez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 289 S.W.2d 251, 261 (1956). This cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court for In view of the necessity of another trial, we will write o......
-
Mackin v. State
...Sec.745; Massey v. State, 154 Tex.Cr. R. 263, 226 S.W.2d 856; Vasquez v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 376, 167 S.W.2d 1030; Ramirez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 289 S.W.2d 251. While the rule relied upon is recognized by this court, it clearly has no application here, under the facts presented. The......