Thе offense is driving while intoxicated; ' the punishment, a fine of $300.00 and 45 days in jаil.
Witness Sauceda testified that his automobile was slightly damaged whеn struck in the rear by another automobile driven by appellant. According to Sauceda, a discussion arose about рayment for the damage during which appellant said he would lоcate a friend who did body work and get an estimate on the costs of repair. -Sau-ceda followed appellаnt on a long drive across town until he became suspicious and, on sighting a police car at an intersection, told the officers what had transpired. Sau-ceda further testified that he observed the appellant’s walk and speech and smelled alcohol on his breath, and that in his opinion, the appellant was intoxicated. His testimony was corroborated by that of his wife.
Officer C. E. Butler testified that on hearing Sauceda’s acсount of what had occurred, he approached the appellant, who had stopped for a traffic light/and hаd him pull to the side of the street. He further testified that he observеd appellant walk in an unbalanced, stumbling manner, noticed a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and found two empty beer bottles in his auto *881 mobile. The opinion of the officer was that the appellant was intoxicated. Appellant’s companion in the automobile was charged with and plead guilty to the offense of being intoxicated.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated.
Prior to the calling of the first witness, appellant made a motion for a mistrial on the grounds that the witness and a juror had conversed in the elevator. In answer to questions by the court, the juror stated that the conversation was not about the case. “Article 671, Vernоn’s Ann.C.C.P., does not prohibit another person in a misdemeanor case from conversing with a juror without the consent of the court after such juror has been impaneled but permitted to seрarate so long as the matters discussed do not relate to the case on trial.” Sillins v. State,
Appellant contends that thе prosecutor asked the witness Sauceda his opinion оn the intoxication of the appellant without laying a proper predicate, and the court erroneously ovеrruled his objection. A reading of the statement of facts reveals that on two occasions prior to the asking of such quеstion, the witness had stated that the appellant was drunk, and no objection was made. No reversible error is presented. Moseley v. State,
Appellant may not complain of the so called Alcoholic Tolerance Test given him as the matter was first raised and developed by appellant himself. There was no showing of the results of the test, nor was any attempt made by the State to do so. Dossey v. State,
In what is purported tо be a formal bill of exceptions, appellant seеks to show reversible error in the jury argument of the prosecutor. As there is no showing that a proper objection was made at the-time of the argument, under the authority of Kirk v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.