Sandford v. State, 31530
| Decision Date | 16 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 31530,31530 |
| Citation | 334 S.W.2d 184,169 Tex.Crim. 388 |
| Parties | L. P. SANDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. D. Crow, Canadian, for appellant.
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 $150.
Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
The State's witness Longhofer testified that he lived on 7th Street in the City of Canadian and that on the night in question he was awakened when his son came to his room around midnight and told him that there was a car sitting out against the house in the yard; that he proceeded to go outside and found an automobile sitting against the Northeast front corner of the house in which the appellant was seated on the driver's side under the steering wheel with his head slumped down toward the back of the cushion; that at such time the appellant appeared to be unconscious but that when he 'woke up' after the City Marshal and Doctor had arrived on the scene he became very belligerent and began cursing and trying to fight. The witness expressed his opinion that at such time the appellant was intoxicated. He further stated that when he first observed the appellant behind the steering wheel he had a cut on his nose with blood on his face and his glasses were broken; that the steering wheel of the automobile was bent, the motor was still warm, the ignition was on and the air conditioner running. He further testified that from the tire marks on the curb and tracks made by the automobile from such point to where the automobile struck the corner of the house it could be determined that the automobile was traveling on 7th Street before it crossed over the curb and entered the yard. The witness further testified that on such occasion there was nothing to indicate that any other person had been present in the automobile with appellant.
Officer Crawford, who went to the scene and placed the appellant under arrest corroborated Longhofer's testimony and expressed his opinion that at such time the appellant was intoxicated.
Sheriff Harry Rathjen testified that he observed the appellant when he was brought to jail on the night in question and stated that in his opinion he was intoxicated at that time. He further identified a bottle of whiskey which he took from appellant's automobile the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State, 60967
...There is no evidence that ... tracks made by (appellant's vehicle) came from the direction of the street, as in Sandford v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 388, 334 S.W.2d 184 (1960), or that a trail of water leaking from the radiator came from the direction of the street, as in Rawls v. State, 167 Te......
- Rhodes v. State
-
Hollingsworth v. State, 40489
...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 Tex.Cr.R. 388, 334 S.W.2d 184; Thomas v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 283 S.W.2d 933; Holder v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 153, 354 S.W.2d 153; Turner v. State,......
-
McDowell v. State, No. 14-06-00812-CR (Tex. App. 8/23/2007), 14-06-00812-CR.
...to prove the defendant was the driver by considering positioning of the defendant's body in the vehicle. See Sandford v. State, 334 S.W.2d 184, 185-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) (finding evidence sufficient "to exclude any outstanding hypothesis that some other person could have been the driver......