Costilla v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Costilla v. State

168 Tex. Crim. 335

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 24, 1959

DocketNo. 30,804

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 Tex. Crim. 335 (Costilla v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Costilla v. State, 168 Tex. Crim. 335 (Tex. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record contains no statement of facts.

There is one bill of exception. It complains of a remark of the attorney for the state in argument to the jury, objected to on the ground that it was a direct reference to the failure of the defendant to testify.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we are not prepared to hold that the remark to the effect that the evidence introduced “is uncontroverted and undenied” was a direct reference to appellant’s failure to testify or that such remark necessarily referred to his failure to testify, if he did, and not to the failure to produce the testimony of eye witnesses, if there were such.

Art. 710 C.C.P. is not transgressed by argument which the jury may reasonably apply to the absence of other testimony. Byers v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 34, 310 S.W. 2d 331.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record contains no statement of facts.

There is one bill of exception. It complains of a remark of the attorney for the state in argument to the jury, objected to on the ground that it was a direct reference to the failure of the defendant to testify.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we are not prepared to hold that the remark to the effect that the evidence introduced “is uncontroverted and undenied” was a direct reference to appellant’s failure to testify or that such remark necessarily referred to his failure to testify, if he did, and not to the failure to produce the testimony of eye witnesses, if there were such.

Art. 710 C.C.P. is not transgressed by argument which the jury may reasonably apply to the absence of other testimony. Byers v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 34, 310 S.W. 2d 331.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 Tex. Crim. 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costilla-v-state-texcrimapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack