Anne Geistauts Elgin v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Anne Geistauts Elgin v. State

DecidedJuly 7, 1993

Docket03-92-00504-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Anne Geistauts Elgin v. State (Anne Geistauts Elgin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anne Geistauts Elgin v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-92-504-CR

ANNE GEISTAUTS ELGIN,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF TOM GREEN COUNTY,

NO. 86,841, HONORABLE R. L. BLANN, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6701l-1 (West Supp. 1993). The county court at law assessed punishment at incarceration for sixty days and a $450 fine, probated.

After the State rested at the guilt stage, appellant moved for an instructed verdict of not guilty on the ground that the State had not proved that the offense occurred in Tom Green County. The motion was overruled. The court then granted the State's motion to reopen, after which the arresting officer was recalled to testify that the events in question took place in Tom Green County. In her two points of error, appellant contends the court erred by overruling her motion for instructed verdict and by permitting the State to reopen.

The court shall allow testimony to be introduced at any time before the argument of a cause is concluded, if it appears that it is necessary to the due administration of justice. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.02 (West 1981). This statute has been construed to mean that a trial court commits reversible error when it refuses a timely request to reopen for the purpose of producing relevant and admissible evidence. Rogers v. State, 774 S.W.2d 247, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). It is not an abuse of discretion to permit the State to reopen after the defendant moves for an instructed verdict. Boatright v. State, 472 S.W.2d 765, 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971).

The court did not err by granting the State's motion to reopen. The officer's testimony is sufficient to prove venue in Tom Green County. Points of error one and two are overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones; Justice Jones Not Participating]

Affirmed

Filed: July 7, 1993

[Do Not Publish]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-92-504-CR

ANNE GEISTAUTS ELGIN,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF TOM GREEN COUNTY,

NO. 86,841, HONORABLE R. L. BLANN, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6701l-1 (West Supp. 1993). The county court at law assessed punishment at incarceration for sixty days and a $450 fine, probated.

After the State rested at the guilt stage, appellant moved for an instructed verdict of not guilty on the ground that the State had not proved that the offense occurred in Tom Green County. The motion was overruled. The court then granted the State's motion to reopen, after which the arresting officer was recalled to testify that the events in question took place in Tom Green County. In her two points of error, appellant contends the court erred by overruling her motion for instructed verdict and by permitting the State to reopen.

The court shall allow testimony to be introduced at any time before the argument of a cause is concluded, if it appears that it is necessary to the due administration of justice. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.02 (West 1981). This statute has been construed to mean that a trial court commits reversible error when it refuses a timely request to reopen for the purpose of producing relevant and admissible evidence. Rogers v. State, 774 S.W.2d 247, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). It is not an abuse of discretion to permit the State to reopen after the defendant moves for an instructed verdict. Boatright v. State, 472 S.W.2d 765, 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971).

The court did not err by granting the State's motion to reopen. The officer's testimony is sufficient to prove venue in Tom Green County. Points of error one and two are overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones; Justice Jones Not Participating]

Affirmed

Filed: July 7, 1993

[Do Not Publish]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anne Geistauts Elgin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anne-geistauts-elgin-v-state-texapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack