Smithhart v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46919,46919 |
| Parties | C. A. SMITHHART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
L. Royce Coleman, Jr., Denton, for appellant.
John Lawhon, Dist. Atty., and Phillip O. Vick, Asst. Dist. Atty., Denton, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of drugs to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely operating and driving such vehicle. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty, punishment was assessed by the court at thirty (30) days confinement in jail and a fine of one hundred dollars; however, no judgment was rendered thereon and appellant was placed on probation for a period of six (6) months under the provisions of Article 42.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
The record reflects that appellant was arrested following an accident on the east service road to Interstate I--35 near West Main Street in Lewisville on April 22, 1972. The sole witness to testify at the trial was Gene Bolden, an officer of the Lewisville Police Department on the date in question. According to Bolden, appellant identified himself as one of the drivers in the collision. Bolden's observations of appellant were that appellant was 'incoherent, his eyes were glassy, the pupils were dilated, and he was unsure of himself.' Appellant told Bolden that he had been to the doctor's office for treatment of a broken foot where he had received a shot for pain; that he had several drinks of vodka earlier in the day and that he had taken seven valiums that day.
The record affirmatively reflects that Bolden could not testify that taking valium tablets would influence appellant's driving. Furthermore, the trial judge sustained appellant's objections to the prosecutor's questions concerning Bolden's opinion of whether appellant was under the influence of drugs. 1
Bolden was a police officer for four months, and was a welder at the time of trial. The record does not reflect how long he had been a police officer at the time appellant was arrested.
The rule in driving while intoxicated cases is that in the absence of direct (opinion) testimony, intoxication may be shown by circumstantial evidence. See Gilder v. State, 474 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Warren v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 98 S.W.2d 197 (1936). Furthermore, a non-expert witness may express his opinion that a person was drunk based on his observations of the accused. See Garza v. State, 442 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Inness v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 524, 293 S.W. 821 (1926). However, the rule as to whether a non-expert witness may testify whether a person is under the influence of drugs is different. For example, in Hudson v. State, 453 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), this court stated:
(Emphasis supplied.)
In Pointer v. State, 467 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), this court stated:
'Again, the physical condition of the appellant, even including the fact that he was under the influence of narcotics, is a material circumstance to the commission of the offense . . . The fact that Hustedt had experience dealing with narcotics and had an opportunity to observe and did observe the appellant made him competent to form an opinion as to whether the appellant was under the influence of narcotics.' (Emphasis supplied.)
Since there is an absence of opinion testimony by a qualified witness as to whether appellant was under the influence of drugs, we look to see whether the State has shown by circumstantial evidence that appellant committed the offense in question.
While it is true that the trial court submitted a charge embracing the law of circumstantial evidence, we find that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The only incriminating facts against appellant were shown by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiffe v. State
...of his mental or physical faculties by reason of introduction of a controlled substance or drug into his body. See Smithhart v. State, 503 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). A lack of balance and slurred speech can prove intoxication. Griffith v. State, 55 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex.Crim.App.20......
-
Durant v. U.S.
...of the witness." Id. (citation omitted). See, e.g., State v. Rifkin, 140 Vt. 472, 438 A.2d 1122 (1981) and Smithhart v. State, 503 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), holding that criminal convictions for driving under the influence of drugs cannot stand absent expert testimony linking the def......
-
Kirkpatrick v. State
...(fingerprint evidence); Austin v. State, 375 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) (medical testimony as to cause of death); Smithhart v. State, 503 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (intoxication opinion evidence); Burrow v. State, 481 S.W.2d 895 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (opinion as to cause of I would h......
-
Good v. State
..." 'coming down from an addictive drug' is of such common occurrence that its recognition requires no expertise. Cf. Smithhart v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 283 (1973). Consequently, Langley does not apply. The prosecutor's comments amounted to the injection of new evidence, constituting......
-
Table of cases
...2001, no pet.), §5:102 Smith v. State , 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1783 (Tex. App.--Austin 2007 pet. ref’d), §9:71 Smithhart v. State , 503 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974), §13:54 Sodipo v. State , 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990), §§16:121, 16:123 Spence v. State , 758 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Crim.App.......
-
Table of cases
...2001, no pet.), §5:102 Smith v. State , 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1783 (Tex. App.--Austin 2007 pet. ref’d), §9:71 Smithhart v. State , 503 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974), §13:54 Sodipo v. State , 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990), §§16:121, 16:123 Spence v. State , 758 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Crim.App.......
-
The Elements of DWI
...at issue is something other than alcohol, lay opinion testimony is not admissible to prove intoxication. [ Smithhart v. State , 503 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).] In a non-alcohol DWI case, the o൶cer’s lay opinion testimony must be limited to the signs observed by the o൶cer; the o......
-
The Elements of DWI
...at issue is something other than alcohol, lay opinion testimony is not admissible to prove intoxication. [ Smithhart v. State , 503 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).] In a non-alcohol DWI case, the officer’s lay opinion testimony must be limited to the signs observed by the officer; the......