Rawls v. State, 30199

• Decision Date: 10 December 1958
• Docket Number: No. 30199,30199
• Citation: 167 Tex.Crim. 106,318 S.W.2d 662
• Parties: Sim RAWLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 662

318 S.W.2d 662

167 Tex.Crim. 106

Sim RAWLS, Appellant, v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30199.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1958.

[167 TEXCRIM 106]Frank C. Mabry, George Donalson, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Monroe[167 TEXCRIM 107] Northrop, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for drunken driving, with punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and seven days in jail.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is challenged.

In Threet v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 497, 250 S.W.2d 200, we held that an extrajudicial confession, alone, would not authorize a conviction for drunken driving.In reaching that conclusion, we said:

'Outside of appellant's confession, we have only a turned-over or wrecked pick-up on the highway to establish * * * that he was the driver of the truck, that he owned the truck, or that he was seen at the place of the wreck.'

In Fancher v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 319 S.W.2d 707, it was insisted that the holding in the Threet case was applicable and controlling.In refusing to so hold, we ruled that proof of certain of the elements which were absent in the Threet case were shown to be present in the Fancher case, such as ownership of the automobile and the accused's presence at the scene of the wreck.Under such circumstances we held that the extrajudicial confession of Fancher that he was the driver of the automobile was sufficiently corroborated and that it authorized the finding of guilt.

In the instant casethe appellant insists that the Threet case is controlling and that the facts here do not authorize an application of such rule as is announced in the Fancher case.

Here are the facts upon which the instant conviction depends:

About 4 o'clock in the morning, two policemen of the city of Houston were on patrol duty when they were waved down by the driver of a wrecker who reported to them that a 'minor accident' had occurred and that 'This subject had been involved in an accident at an unknown location and his car got locked and would't run.'To whom 'this subject' referred was not made clear.The inference is that it had reference to the appellant.[167 TEXCRIM 108] The automobile appellant had driven was stopped near the wrecker and appellant was standing beside it and was listening to the conversation between the policemen and the driver of the wrecker.Appellant walked up to the patrol car and said to the policemen that ...