*1 315 “Q. words, your testimony you really In other it is your knowledge you know of own whether or not have ever seen him absolutely nothing when drink, he has had is that correct? correct, A. That wouldn’t know that.” Cravey The witness on testified cross-examination that he “Now, had ridden in a car with He was then asked: you have your ever you ridden in a him car with when knowledge
own absolutely nothing that he had to drink?” objection question The that the left an inference about some overruled, substantially extraneous offense was and the same repeated witness answered the affir- mative.
The questions by witness then was asked and answered appellant which it driver; good was shown that was a careful driver; obeyed signs stayed traffic and on his side of the road.
The driving manner which pursued when being stopped. officer led to his areWe aware of no authority holding and none is permissible cited it for the state to show when drinking he had not been driver, was a by careful employment as indicated as a test testing driver experiment. for a tire agree
We cannot that the calling cross-examination was error for reversal or it raised an inference that on other occasions drove an automobile while he was intoxicated.
The evidence sustains the conviction and no reversible error appears.
The is affirmed.
Leroy Smith State 31,506. February 17, April State’s Motion for *2 Judge, WOODLEY, dissented. Houston, Martin, Crawford, E. H. A.
W. Attorney, Robertson, Jr., Walton, District H. Dan Samuel Attorney, Houston, and Assistants District Ernst, Erwin G. Attorney, Austin, for state. Douglas, State’s Leon Presiding Judge. MORRISON, malice; The offense is murder without years. question of are met at the outset We with serious Appellant on the motion at
misconduct. the affidavits of three of the introduced jurors, state introduced Baker swore affidavits from four the remainder. Juror arriving during verdict, deliberations, at a that their and before only jurors to serve have several stated “would five-year King given sentence.” Juror swore months arriving during deliberations, that he heard their and before only verdict, 18 months at a have to serve five-year of a of sentence.” And Printis swore jurors deliberations, their and before years (appellant) upon, “that if he eighteen it in months.” assessed five he would serve juncture significant point at this We think it is out parole none of the above affidavits mentions parole but make the blanket assertion that the sentence be served in 18 months. following Juror The state introduced the affidavits. Gam- (sic) anyone saything brell swore as follows “I that a recall prisoner five-year eighteen could serve a term in Hoyer anyone saying follows, Juror “I not recall swore do * * * eighteen months on would have to serve * * *
five-year period Judge Bagby swore, “I did hear * * * anyone say prisoner that a months “ * * * * * five-year on term swore, Juror Gorski nor did * * * anyone hear else representation make as to the time he would have to serve holdings Under State, of this court 163 Tex. Gibbs S. 2dW. affidavits they did not hear statements made is not an sufficient to raise issue of fact for the trial court’s determination. *3 The facts before stronger Mays us here are far than in
State, 166 Tex. 13, 2d because S.W. there the concerning discussion parole, for accused’s not that he would serve the sentence. Upon trial, another newly the evidence discovered
will presented, not be and therefore need not be discussed. jury Because the its deliberations received new and incorrect concerning judg- information the the ment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
WOODLEY, Judge (dissenting). jury After the guilty had as charged they and while discussing punishment the to be assessed, “various members of the made observation con- cerning pardon policy. the thought One he said defendant get could serving time, off after two-thirds and others said periods other of time
“Some if stated that he were assessed serve it in people they “Various made observations about what had heard concerning good behavior, time off and we all generally agreed that the defendant would not have to serve (Quotations years.” entire five are the evidence from adduced at trial.) on motion for new suggestion juror There is not the least claimed to know required what calendar time would be five-year-sentence serve a in penitentiary. most, At one or jurors thought more such sentence could be served in eighteen months. 329, 2d Rep. 319 S.W. State, 167 Tex. Cr.
In Salcido v. approxicately serve juror the defendant jury’s was sentenced time to which he one-third of the term, juror’s statement year applied As to a verdict.” This 20 months. approximately would serve was that defendant con- upon predicated that such statement court said good behavior time off would secure tingency the inmate judgment. and affirmed will the defendant states that appears that
It thus ver- 20 months the approximately five-year-sentence serve upheld, if his statement but dict will be set will be the verdict in 18 months such sentence accept nice distinction. valid the cannot aside. overruling judge his discretion not abuse The trial did not be over- should trial and his motion for new turned. Allen v. State
Jack *4 February 24, 31,218. April Motion for