*1 763 (1953). 509, 596, 599 Reversi ordinarily in connec error shown
ble is BROWN, Appellant, Cecil Lawrence rulings questions on tion with particu turns on the unless the whole case evidence admitted or excluded. Atlan
lar STATE Middleman, Mut. Ins. Co. v. 661 tic 182, 185 Antonio S.W.2d — San n.r.e.); 1983, TEX.R. writ ref’d see also Appeals (stating judgment 434 that "no shall CIV.P. San Antonio. trial or be reversed on new any ground the that the dered cause on trial court has committed error law appellate
the course of the unless the opinion the error
court shall be
complained of amounted to such a denial of rights appellant as was reason probably to
ably calculated cause judg improper
cause the rendition of an
ment, prevented such probably was as appellant making proper presen appellate court”). case
tation to
TEX.R.EVID. 401 sets out the relevancy:
test
“Relevant evidence” means hav-
ing any tendency make the existence any consequence fact that is of to the proba-
determination of the action more probable or less than it would
ble
without the evidence. general prior rule Texas acts of the parties transactions one persons irrelevant,
other are immaterial highly prejudicial and in violation of
the rule that res inter alios acts are incom
petent evidence, particularly in case. a civil
Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Company Baker, refd
(Tex.Civ.App. Tyler writ n.r. — e.). The of “res inter alios acta” is doctrine on act or principle
based that each established
transaction sued should be own facts circum its
stances, 23 TEX.JUR.2d Evidence §
(1961) (see cited). cases Since Klorer’s of satisfy the deposition failed to
fer similar, being substantially
requirement of court hold was not error for the trial
we deny its of irrele admission on basis
vancy.
Accordingly we affirm the
the trial court.
(A) having not the normal use of mental physical by or faculties reason of the alcohol, introduction of a controlled substance, drug, a or a combination of two or more of those substances body; or, into the (B) having an alcohol of concentration percent 0.10 or more. He contends that there are two alterna Saenz, Antonio, David San appellant. for tive methods committing of of offense Jr., Farrias, Millsap, Mary Roy Sam Jim- driving intoxicated, State, while Forte v. enez, Ramos, Estee, Fernando Charles 686 S.W.2d 746 Worth — Fort Antonio, Crim. Dist. Attys., for 1985,pet. granted) and he is entitled
lee. placed precise be on notice of the manner in which he committed the offense and the CADENA, C.J., Before and and CANTU manner utilized to the offense. DIAL, JJ. The certainly defendant is entitled OPINION to demand the nature and cause of the against accusation have of DIAL, copy a Justice. CONST, charging instrument. TEX. appeal This an from a I, Furthermore, art. if an act or § driving while intoxicated. Trial was before omission that would constitute criminal court, punishment was assessed at defined, statutorily conduct is def and that days jail. a fine of and 15 in $300.00 provides for inition more than one manner error, single ground In his defendant committing or means of that act or omis contends that the trial court have should sion, then upon timely request, the State quashed the not information because it did allege particular must or manner give precise notice the nature of the Ferguson means seeks establish. prepare State, accusation so that he de- could a (Tex.Crim.App. fense. We affirm the 1981). conviction. But when terms and elements in defined, statutorily indictment are and the pertinent alleged part The information in essentially they evidentiary, definitions are that, not in alleged need be further the indict JANUARY, or day On about the 23RD ment. Id. at 850. A.D., 1985, CECIL LAWRENCE BROWN, defendant, hereinafter called The offense with which we are here then there and operate drive a if person concerned occurs a is intoxicated public in a place motor vehicle while the driving operating while motor or a vehicle intoxicated, said defendant was to-wit: public 6701Z-l(b). place. a Art. by reason of the introduction of alcohol statutory from the variables derive body; into the defendant’s may fact that the individual intoxicated substance, alcohol, a controlled quash In a motion to filed in the trial or drug, combination of these substances. court defendant raised the contention that place the information does him no- not gave here the defendant information tice of the manner means which the charged he was driving offense of while intoxicated was on a date in a motor vehicle urges committed. On he the same public place he intoxicated from while was contention, citing TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. pled. All essential facts were alcohol. 6701Z-l(a)(2)(A) (B) (Vernon ANN. art. proved Whether the State Supp.1985): testimony he state intoxication normal use his mental did not have the
Intoxicated means: physical faculties or were alcohol concentration his blood
purely evidentiary matters —matters pled. required to be
proof which were (Tex.
Thomas (on rehearing).
Crim.App.1981) motion for *3 specifying hold how the State
We not con
planned to intoxication does in which the offense was
cern the manner Rather, only inform
committed. would type
the defendant about present intended to at which
the State subject proper
is not the of a motion
quash. Perryman Dist.] [14th — Houston pet.). no affirmed.
CADENA, Justice, concurring. Chief agree
I the conviction should be
affirmed, appellant’s but because sole
complaint is he had no imputed of the offense him. The
nature
charging instrument informs
that he was a motor vehicle while complaint
intoxicated. No is made
gibberish, “to reason the intro- wit:
duction of alcohol into
body.” WATSON, Appellant,
Carlos
The STATE of Appeals of Antonio. Dallas,
Kerry Fitzgerald, P. lant.