Grooms v. State

244 S.W.2d 229, 156 Tex. Crim. 504

Opinions

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was fined the sum of $50.00 upon a charge of driving an automobile while intoxicated.

There are two bills of exception in the record, both being in the same condition. They relate to what occurred at the time the highway patrolman arrived at the scene of the accident where appellant was arrested and afterwards charged with the offense mentioned.

Bill of Exception No. 1 is an objection to the state’s witness saying anything as to what occurred after the officer arrived at the scene of the accident in question herein. The bill itself shows that the officer did not testify to anything that took place after he arrived at the scene of the accident. Therefore, the bill is insufficient in that it fails to show what the objectionable testimony was, if any. Under the general rule laid down in 4 Tex. Jur. p. 303, secs. 210 and 211, we think the bill evidences no error.

Bill of Exception No. 2 is an objection to the arresting officer making the statement that “Grooms admitted he was driving the pick-up.” If there was any error in admitting such statement, it was cured by the fact that Grooms himself took the stand and admitted that he was driving the pick-up at such time. We think that this bill is without merit. See 4 Tex. Jur. p. 587, sec. 414, and numerous authorities there cited.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.