Goodman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Goodman v. State

187 S.W.2d 224, 148 Tex. Crim. 353, 1945 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 724

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 2, 1945

DocketNo. 23113.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 S.W.2d 224 (Goodman 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

Goodman v. State, 187 S.W.2d 224, 148 Tex. Crim. 353, 1945 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 724 (Tex. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

*354 BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving while intoxicated, with a sentence of thirty days in the county jail.

The appellant had a collision with a taxi cab in Alilene on July 29, 1944. H. E. Sanderson, the owner of the taxi cab company, was called as a witness and testified that he went to the scene of the accident, talked with the appellant, and observed his conduct. It was his opinion that the accused .was intoxicated. An officer who was called to the scene gave like testimony. The evidence sufficiently supports the jury’s verdict.

We find one bill of exception in the record complaining of the action of the court in overruling appellant’s second motion for continuance. By it the appellant sought a continuance for the purpose of securing the attendance of a witness who had permanently removed from the county and who admittedly had not established another place of residence. His whereabouts was unknown. There was no representation that he would be able to have the evidence of the witness at a subsequent term of court. Whether or not he used diligence in securing the evidence of the absent witness was a matter for the determination of the trial court under the circumstances of the case. The action of the trial court in overruling the motion for continuance was justified under the circumstances.

We find no irregularities in the trial of the case and, accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

*354 BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving while intoxicated, with a sentence of thirty days in the county jail.

The appellant had a collision with a taxi cab in Alilene on July 29, 1944. H. E. Sanderson, the owner of the taxi cab company, was called as a witness and testified that he went to the scene of the accident, talked with the appellant, and observed his conduct. It was his opinion that the accused .was intoxicated. An officer who was called to the scene gave like testimony. The evidence sufficiently supports the jury’s verdict.

We find one bill of exception in the record complaining of the action of the court in overruling appellant’s second motion for continuance. By it the appellant sought a continuance for the purpose of securing the attendance of a witness who had permanently removed from the county and who admittedly had not established another place of residence. His whereabouts was unknown. There was no representation that he would be able to have the evidence of the witness at a subsequent term of court. Whether or not he used diligence in securing the evidence of the absent witness was a matter for the determination of the trial court under the circumstances of the case. The action of the trial court in overruling the motion for continuance was justified under the circumstances.

We find no irregularities in the trial of the case and, accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.W.2d 224, 148 Tex. Crim. 353, 1945 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-state-texcrimapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack