Threet v. State, 25926
| Decision Date | 25 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 25926,25926 |
| Citation | 157 Tex.Crim. 497,250 S.W.2d 200 |
| Parties | THREET v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ray Martin, Wichita Falls, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
Drunk driving is the offense; the punishment, ten days in jail.
On the afternoon of May 16, 1951, a highway patrolman was called to the scene of an automobile wreck just beyond the city limits of the city of Wichita Falls. There he found that a Ford pick-up truck had overturned. As a result of information then received, he went to a hospital where he found appellant, who admitted to the witness that he was the driver of the pick-up truck that had overturned. The witness testified that appellant was drunk at the time, with a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The jailer into whose custody appellant was delivered testified that he was drunk at the time.
It is upon this testimony the conviction is predicated.
Appellant did not testify.
It is appellant's contention that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction, in that the corpus delicti was not established outside of and other than his extrajudicial confession. To support his contention, appellant relies chiefly upon the fact that it is only by his statement that he is shown to have been the driver of the pick-up truck or, for that matter, of any other motor vehicle.
The corpus delicti of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zavala v. State
...driving while intoxicated is that someone drove or operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. Threet v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 497, 250 S.W.2d 200, 200 (1952). In Folk v. State, 797 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. App.-Austin 1990, pet. ref'd), a case very similar to the one before u......
-
Gribble v. State
...v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 144 S.W.2d 581 (1940); Bell 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 Sel......
-
Robbins v. State, No. 2-07-186-CR (Tex. App. 10/2/2008)
...while intoxicated is that someone drove or operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. Threet v. State, 157 Tex. Crim. 497, 498, 250 S.W.2d 200, 200 (1952). Here, Appellant contends that "[n]either the driving behavior of the Appellant as described by the trooper . . . nor......
-
Hartman v. State
...driving while intoxicated is that someone drove or operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. Threet v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 497, 250 S.W.2d 200, 200 (1952). If the State can prove a defendant had "previously been convicted two times of an offense" related to operating a ......
-
Table of cases
...v. State , 678 S.W.2d 82 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984), §13:25 Thomas v. State , 723 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986), §6:72 Threet v. State , 250 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Crim.App. 1952), §13:24 Tillman v. State , 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 3359, 2001 WL 543666, No. 14-98-1233-CR, *8-9 (Tex.App. —Houston [14th Dis......
-
Table of cases
...82 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984), §13:25 Thomas v. State , 723 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986), §6:72 A-536 Texas DWI Manual Threet v. State , 250 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Crim.App. 1952), §13:24 Tillman v. State , 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 3359, 2001 WL 543666, No. 14-98-1233-CR, *8-9 (Tex.App. —Houston [14th Di......
-
The Elements of DWI
...A confession alone does not prove the corpus delecti of the crime unless it can be independently corroborated. [ Threet v. State , 250 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952).] This corroborating evidence need only permit a rational inding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when considered in con......
-
The Elements of DWI
...A confession alone does not prove the corpus delecti of the crime unless it can be independently corroborated. [ Threet v. State , 250 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Crim.App. 1952).] This corroborating evidence need only permit a rational finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when considered in conj......