Sublett v. State, 26335
| Citation | 158 Tex.Crim. 627,258 S.W.2d 336 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 26335,26335 |
| Parties | SUBLETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. P. Moseley, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
This is a conviction for driving an automobile while intoxicated upon a public highway; the punishment, a fine of $200 and 90 days in jail.
Appellant's apprehension and arrest grew out of an automobile collision.
Witnesses for the state testified to appellant's intoxicated condition, while the testimony of the appellant and his witnesses showed that he was not intoxicated at the time.
Thus, under the testimony, the direct issue of appellant's guilt was drawn. It was the province of the jury to believe the state's testimony.
Policeman Howe, the arresting officer, arrived at the scene of the collision shortly thereafter. He expressed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated at that time. Upon direct examination of that witness, state's counsel propounded to him the following interrogatory:
"Alright officer (referring to Mr. Howe) I will ask you to state whether or not at the time (referring to the time he was sitting in the car with the defendant shortly after the collision in question) you had in your possession an intoximeter test--a scientific intoxication test?"
Appellant objected to the question so propounded, contending that the state was thereby attempting to get before the jury the fact that he refused to submit to the intoximeter test. The objection was sustained. The bill of exception contains a certificate of fact which would authorize appellant's contention. He has briefed and argued the objection as though the certificate of fact as stated in the bill of exception had been certified by the trial court as true when he approved the bill of exception.
Appellant appears, however, to have overlooked the fact that the trial court, in his qualification to the bill of exception, expressly refused to certify the facts stated in the bill. Having accepted the bill of exception as so qualified, the appellant is bound thereby.
As so qualified, the bill of exception constitutes only a complaint to the asking of the question heretofore set out, with a statement of grounds of objection containing no showing that same were, in fact, true.
We are unable to agree that reversible error is reflected thereby.
Upon redirect examination of appellant, state's counsel asked him if he had been in trouble before. To this inquiry appellant replied, 'Not in the City of Dallas.' Upon further questioning as to whether he had ever been in trouble in Houston, appellant replied, 'About twelve years ago.'
Appellant's objection of remoteness was sustained, and the matter was not further alluded to.
The bill of exception presenting this matter shows that at the time the questions were propounded, state's counsel had in his hand a statement from the Dallas Police Department showing that, in 1940, appellant had been convicted in the Federal Court of Houston of a felony.
Appellant insists that the questions propounded should be appraised by us as though such fact of conviction had thereby been deliberately placed before the jury. But here, again, the trial court's qualification to the bill of exception precludes any such construction.
In its final analysis, the bill of exception reflects only the asking of the questions and the answers, as above set forth. The jury did not know the nature of the trouble, or the extent thereof, that appellant had been into 'About twelve years ago' in Houston. We are unable to agree with appellant that reversible error is reflected thereby.
The remaining bills of exception complain of arguments of state's counsel.
In appraising complaints of this character it must be kept in mind that for argument of state's counsel to constitute reversible error it must be obviously harmful and improper, or in violation of some mandatory statute, or must inject some new fact into the case. Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr. 401, 257 S.W. 548. The Vineyard case has been repeatedly followed, as will be seen by referring to Shepard's Citations.
Complaint is made in bill of exception No. 3 of the following argument:
We fail to see any objectionable features in this argument. Certainly it was within the province of state's counsel to argue the question of punishment to be affixed for a violation of the law. If appellant was contending that the reference to appellant as being a 'big car dealer' was prejudicial, he should have made his objection, directly, to that statement and not have coupled it with other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dudley v. State
...Shilling v. State, 434 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Willeford v. State, 489 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Cf. Sublett v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 258 S.W.2d 336 (1953). The rule announced in Cardwell has been consistently applied where the State initially elicits such testimony. The rule ......
-
Bass v. State
...Shilling v. State, 434 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Willeford v. State, 489 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Cf. Sublett v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 258 S.W.2d 336 (1953).6 For a comprehensive history of the metamorphosis of the confession statute up to amendment in 1977, see Butler v. State......
-
Sutton v. State, 52680
...Shilling v. State, 434 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Willeford v. State, 489 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Cf. Sublett v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 258 S.W.2d 336 (1953). The rule announced in Cardwell has been applied where the State initially elicits such testimony. The rule is recognized......
-
Bowles v. State, 30374
...of such exhibit would have materially altered the verdict and are not bound by the trial court's conclusion.' In Sublett v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 258 S.W.2d 336, 338, we 'We will be bound only by certificates from the trial court as to facts. The question was asked. This fact is certifi......