Rios v. State, 39117
| Decision Date | 26 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39117,39117 |
| Citation | 398 S.W.2d 281 |
| Parties | Daniel A. RIOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
George T. Thomas, Big Springs, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder without malice under Article 802c, Vernon's Ann.P.C.; the punishment, five years.
The witness Holley testified that as he proceeded into an intersection on a green light his companion Grantham exclaimed, 'Look out, we are going to get hit', that he looked to his right and saw an automobile so close upon him that he was unable to do anything to prevent it from crashing into his right front door. After the collision, Holley, Grantham, appellant and another Latin American were carried to the hospital. During the journey both Holley and appellant charged each other with having run a red light. Soon after arrival at the hospital, Grantham died. While the parties were at the hospital, Officer Hiltbruner asked appellant if he was the driver of the Buick which collided with Holley's Lincoln, and he said that he was. Some three hours after the collision appellant gave his written consent to take a blood test, and some time thereafter the doctor in charge told the police that appellant was in no need of hospitalization, and he was released to them. Upon his arrival at the police headquarters, appellant was interrogated by Officer Scott and executed a written confession after being given a full warning. The following morning appellant was carried back to the hospital for a check up, and when he was returned, Scott again went over the matter with appellant and a second written confession was executed. The results of the blood test showed appellant to have had .13 percent of alcohol at the time the test was taken, which in the opinion of the expert was indicative of intoxication. Officer Hiltbruner expressed the opinion from his observation of appellant at the hospital that he was under the influence of intoxicants. The doctor who treated appellant expressed the opinion that appellant was under the influence of alcohol, but stated that in his opinion appellant had not consumed enough alcohol to affect his reflexes or his speech, but stated that the jovial manner of appellant and his companion manifested a general unconcern of the seriousness of what had happened. The witness Bell testified that she sold appellant three quarts of beer and a pint of wine some three hours prior to the collision.
Numerous pictures were introduced which demonstrated that the Buick had rammed the Lincoln in the right front door. A number of witnesses observed the Buick run numerous red lights before it ran through the one at the intersection where the collision occurred.
The above is a brief summary of this 500 page...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gribble v. State
...v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 509, 196 S.W.2d 923, 924 (1946); Threet v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 497, 250 S.W.2d 200 (1952); Rios v. State, 398 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Perez v. State, 432 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).However, in Self v. State, 513 S.W.2d 832, 834-835 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), we......
-
Hollingsworth v. State, 40489
...In many of these cases we have found, under the facts presented, the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. See Rios v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 281; Hughes v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 300, 276 S.W.2d 813; Harrison v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 350 S.W.2d 204; Sandford v. State 169......
-
Lewis v. State, No. 2-02-341-CR (Tex. App. 12/31/2003)
...involved in the accident while intoxicated.2 See Perez v. State, 432 S.W.2d 954, 954-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968); Rios v. State, 398 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966); Thomas v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 268, 283 S.W.2d 933, 933-34 (1955). Points one and two are overruled. In his third point......
-
Perez v. State, 41509
...proof sufficiently corroborates his admission that he was the driver of the car. The grounds of error are overruled. Rios v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 281. The judgment is ...