Thе offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $100.00.
The trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury.
Deputy Sheriff Smith testifiеd that, while on patrol on the day in question, he observed a pickup truck “weaving back and forth, from on the shoulder back onto the right of way,” that he turned on his siren and brought the truck to a halt, that the appellant who was the driver thereof had a flushed face, dilated eyes, walked unsteadily, smelled of alcohol, and, in his opinion, was intoxicated. A search of appellant’s truck revealed “one full fifth and one fifth had been about half drank.” Appellant was arrested and carried to jail.
Appellant, testifying in his оwn behalf, admitted having had three drinks mixed with сoca cola apprоximately an hour before he was arrested, stated that he had not had much experience drinking alcoholic beverages, but denied that he wаs intoxicated.
We find the evidencе above stated to be sufficient to support the finding of the trial court.
Bill оf Exception No. 1 contains a сontention, certified to as such by the trial court, that the date on the infоrmation was not clear or intelligiblе. Attached to the statement of fаcts following the approval is what purports to be a photostаtic copy thereof. The same was not introduced in evidence nor made a part of the bill of exception and is therefore not bеfore the court for consideration.
*249
Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the admission into evidence of the results of a blood test made after the appellant’s arrest. The state, in developing the chain of custody of the blood sample, failed to make the proof requisite for its admission into evidence. However, since this was a trial before the court, we must assume that he considered only the admissible evidence. Arnold v. State,
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.