Marshall v. StateMarshall v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Dice
Upon a trial before the court without a jury, aрpellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated and was assessed punishment at a fine of $150.00 and 3 days in jail.
The only issue upon thе trial was whether the appellant was the driver of the automobile in question, as it was stipulated by and between the appellant and the stаte that the appellant was intoxicated on the date and at the time which was made thе basis of the offense.
The state’s witness Mrs. H. J. Becnel testified that, while she was in a dancing studio at the corner of West Alabama and Yoakum Streets, hеr car was parked nearby on West Alabama Street; that upon hearing a noise she ran оutside and saw that her car had been hit by another car from the rear; that she saw the apрellant seated “at the wheel” of the car that hit the rear of her automobile, and she sаw no one else in the car; that the car wаs not stopped when she saw it and she saw “him baсk the car up;” and that, after she hollered at the appellant, he got out of the car and she talked to him about how the collision оccurred, and he said “he didn’t see the car.”
Appellant did not testify but called as a witness Josephine Prybowski, who testified that, on the occаsion in question, she was in the dancing studio, and, after hеaring the noise, went outside and observed the аppellant in a car which she said was his and whiсh he got out of after the officer arrived.
Wе find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and overrule appellant’s contention that it fails to show that he was opеrating the automobile prior to the collision or at any time on the occasion in question. See Hughes v. State, 161 Texas Cr. Rep. 300, 276 S.W. 2d 813, and Thomas v. State, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 268, 283 S.W. 2d 933, where, under similar facts, the evidence was held to be sufficient to show that the accused was the driver of the motor vehicle.
Appellant complains of the aсtion of the court in questioning the state’s witness Mrs. Becnel after her direct and cross-
examination by counsel. The court had the right to question the witnеss in order to obtain a clearer idea of the merits of the case; and the trial being befоre the court without a jury, his action could not hаve in
We find no error in the court’s refusal to pеrmit the appellant to re-open the case and offer additional testimony after he had rendered his judgment.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.