Snider v. State
| Citation | 165 S.W.2d 904 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 22295.,22295. |
| Parties | SNIDER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Jefferson County Court at Law; C. N. Ellis, Judge.
Bill Snider was convicted of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
J. A. Veillon and D. F. Sanders, both of Beaumont, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.
The only complaint which the appellant makes relates to the court's action in declining to submit his special requested charge, or one of like import, to the effect that although the jury believed from the evidence that the defendant, Bill Snider, was in his automobile on said highway at the time of the collision and that he was intoxicated or under the influence of intoxicating liquor but that at said time John Boyle, and not the defendant, was driving the automobile, or if they had a reasonable doubt thereof, to acquit him. In our opinion, appellant was entitled to such an instruction, and the court's failure to give the requested charge or one of like import was error. Every defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have his defensive theory submitted to the jury in an affirmative way; and since there was evidence in this case by Boyle and from some of the occupants of the car, as well as the appellant, that Boyle and not the appellant was driving the car, the court should have submitted the requested instruction to the jury. In support of what we have said, we refer to the following cases: Smart v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 664, 146 S.W.2d 397; Matterson v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 152 S.W.2d 352; McNeil v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 374, 154 S.W.2d 653; Kibbe v. State, 133 Tex. Cr.R. 494, 112 S.W.2d 733, and authorities there cited.
It must be borne in mind that the offense is composed chiefly of two elements: First, intoxication, and second, driving an automobile upon a public highway while in such condition. Consequently the State is required to prove the existence of both elements before a conviction can be sustained. Appellant's defense was twofold: First, that he did not drive the automobile at the time and place in question; and second, that he was not drunk; and this defensive theory finds support in the evidence. It is apparent from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Ross
...public highway while intoxicated' consists of two elements; intoxication and driving upon a highway in such condition. Snider v. State, 165 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Cr.App.1942). A criminal or unlawful intent is not an essential element of the Joiner v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.App. 526, 279 S.W.2d 333 (19......
-
Shaw v. State
...while intoxicated on a public road, highway, street, or alley. Johnson v. State, 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Cr.App.1975)." See Snider v. State, 165 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Cr.App.1942). In Young v. State, 544 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was "The court will not presume any acts against the accused tha......
-
Loftin v. State
...affirmative submission of his defense raised by his testimony. Kessler v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 125 S.W.2d 308; Snider v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 59, 165 S.W.2d 904; Gilmore v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 257 S.W.2d 300; Huckert v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 368, 264 S.W.2d 121; Humphrey v. State,......
-
Patterson v. State, 28738
...error in Eavans v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 587, 209 S.W.2d 928; Brickell v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 134 S.W.2d 262; Snider v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 59, 165 S.W.2d 904, and in cases there In view of another trial, we observe that the punishment assessed was a fine only, whereas the statute mak......