*1 appel- being cross-examined State’s witnesses one of the While reputation truth appellant’s general asked if he knew lant he was com- bill Objection was sustained. veracity. question to the have would to show what the witness plaining incident fails qualification that at by the court’s further shown answered. testified, assur- question had not that no asked time the had testify, after he and that given that he would ance was the court been) may proposed testimony (whatever if become witness question had been- re-oifered, although the witness whom was not examined both the State and further addressed was re-called judgment is affirmed. record. The No error from the
Affirmed. Herring Lonnie State. 11, 13434. Dismissed 1930.
No. June 26, Appeal Reinstated 1930. June On 1930. the Merits October Rehearing February 18, Denied *2 opinion The states the case. Price, Waco, &
Miller Dawson, Attorney, A. A. Austin, State’s for the State. CHRISTIAN, Judge. driving offense is an automobile aon —The incorporated city intoxicated; street in an while punishment, a fine jail days. and confinement for 90 $150.00 recognizance fatally
The appel defective. It is recited therein that charged lant stands driving with an intoxicated, automobile while that he has been driving convicted of the offense of an automobile one, intoxicated. forbidding terms, operat We have no statute from ing a motor vehicle while intoxicated. In order to come within the prohibition statute, operate the accused must drive or such motor upon alley place vehicle a street or or other within the limits of an incorporated city, village, upon public highway town or or road or C.; within the State. Article P. Nicholson v. 110 Texas Rep., 112, (2d) Crim. 7 S. W. McFadden Texas Rep., 166, Crim. appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed. opinion foregoing Appeals of the Commission of exam- has been by approved Appeals and Judges the Court Criminal ined Court. TO REINSTATE. ON MOTION day appeal at former CHRISTIAN, dismissed —The bond, recognizance. A sufficient of an insufficient the term because appeal timely filed, is reinstated and approved, having properly its merits. later consideration on will stand for the case
Reinstated. Appeals exam- foregoing has been of the Commission approved by Appeals Judges of the Court of Criminal ined the Court. THE
ON MERITS. *3 appeal term, CHRISTIAN, at a former was dismissed —The but The case is now considered on its merits. later reinstated. appel- appellant drunk, testified that The officer who arrested while city testi- lant drove an automobile on a street in the of Waco. The mony controverted. of the officer was not appellant plea guilty a that
The record discloses that entered of and consequences plea. duly he was admonished the court of the of said Appellant challenge sufficiency a seeks now to the of the evidence. On plea sufficiency may guilty, challenged, of the of the evidence not be except in a case in which the facts adduced are such as to inno show legal Crumbley cence or in there is no adduced. v. which evidence Rep., 391, W., 1064, State, authorities 103 Texas Crim. and cited. exception argument
Bill No. 1 is concerned with the of the dis- of attorney, challenged state- trict wherein he stated that no one had the appellant’s got It ment of the officer that “no one out of automobile.” appellant stated, objection, testify ground a did not is as of that that no one else could have made the denial. from the court’s qualification appellant’s position of the bill that counsel had taken the argument might driving in that one have been the car when some else objection a ground is the officer saw it. The statement of the not part judge have certificate on the the trial that no one else could appellant person got A denied that a other than out of the automobile. objection judge ground statement of a a certificate the that not true; objection merely shows the facts which form the basis of the are it' objection Code, that such an was made. Branch’s Annotated Penal Rep., 559, S. Section Buchanan v. 107 Texas Crim. exception the The bill is insufficient to manifest error. While question decision, doubtful bill is not before us for it is if the would Appellant pleaded
any event under the record here manifest error. presence jury guilty driving to automobile under the in the charged indictment. conditions in the quash Appellant’s properly the indictment overruled. motion was appellant charged influ- It was in the indictment that under the liquor intoxicating when he drove the automobile. It was ence of degree influence of intoxicat- further averred that he was in under the liquor. any ing language degree If the “in under the influence of intoxi- liquor” cating vague is so and indefinite as to obnoxious to the make it provisions Constitution, language of our the use of such did not surplusage, invalidating Rejecting indictment. as effect it appellant charges having indictment still with driven his automobile part denouncing while intoxicated. That of the statute as an offense the driving upheld. of an has automobile while intoxicated been Nunn Rep., 487, (2d) 114 Texas Crim. S. 648. See 26 W. Article 802, P. C. proof undisputed he that was drunk when drove phase
the automobile. Hence the fact that the court submitted that authorizing driving the statute a conviction for an automobile any degree liquor error, intoxicating not, under the influence of if would warrant reversal. appellant’s
An examination of all of contentions leads us to the presented. conclusion that error is not judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed. foregoing Appeals of the Commission of has exam- Appeals approved by Judges ined of the Court of Criminal *4 the Court.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING. Presiding MORROW, original hearing record the the —On appellant. appear plea guilty was made to a that of was entered the By transcript plea the corrected it is now made to that the was show guilty. not one of
Rutherford, officer, positive about an testified in the most terms that October, appellant 1929, upon the 22nd of the drove his a automobile public street while he was drunk. A doctor testified on behalf of the appellant October, day to the effect that on the 27th of he treated the appellant tremens, malady for delirium a due the chronic use of to produces insanity. alcohol which a form of The doctor said that his appellant began days treatment of the some five after' the occurrence upon present which the transaction is founded and that he not able was give to an as his at dis- to the condition of mind that time as happening, wrong particular right of the the arid tinguishing between appellant obser- came under the opinion, at time the in the but that his suffering for delirium tremens from he had vation of the witness delirium tremens testified that The doctor further four weeks. three or quit is, they drinking will insanity, it that “if temporary of form is patient.” depends upon eventually.” condition of the up “It the also clear sanitarium, appellant nothing at the drank doctor that the The said trial treating time began him. At the of the witness which was after the distinguishing appellant capable regarded he the doctor that the said wrong. making to right officer the arrest testified The and between appellant at is, and acts of the time circumstances, to words the that arrest, ability at to his to estimate the events which tended show his the time. exception 1,
In bill No. the remark of counsel the State appellant as to the failure of the to tes criticized an indirect reference tify. From bill it is whether the remark was shown to the doubtful However, qualified, as it have been the statute. to violated the An remark invited the remarks counsel for invited C., Ann. cannot be the basis for a reversal. See Branch’s Texas P. made them, 363, collated, among Baker v. Texas Crim. Sec. and cases 246, App., Rep., 41 Texas Crim. Martin v. statute, upon being an
The is attacked as based invalid indictment verbiage duplicitous. upon being as claims based and also Both are the 1925, C., appear: “Or following Art. the P. wherein words liquor.” validity any degree intoxicating under the influence of is, “in upheld, though mentioned, has been the that statute words ought any degree” regarded surplusage be have been as not to charge jury. indict- embraced in the or the the either indictment to charges appellant degree under ment that the intoxicated and liquor. duplicitous. Only one intoxicating the is not influence of any charged. degree” surplusage and offense is “in are words indictment, presence, should have been omitted from the but their under case, ground judgment. the facts of furnishes for a reversal of the no upon appli- charge jury In his to the the court instructed the law permanent insanity temporary insanity recent cable to due to the support voluntary liquor. intoxicating such The evidence is as to use propriety charges. of each of The doctor who testified that appellant suffering delirium tremens said that it was a form from temporary insanity However, due alcoholism. he did not see the arrest, days arrest. time of his until five after his At the *5 designated the as drunk. officer Finding record, rehearing is over- no error motion ruled.
Overruled.