Hamlett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hamlett v. State

243 S.W.2d 166, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2031

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 7, 1951

DocketNo. 25482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 S.W.2d 166 (Hamlett 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

Hamlett v. State, 243 S.W.2d 166, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2031 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated and by the jury assessed a fine of $200.00,

The only matter complained of herein is relative to the testimony of a State’s witness that a urine test was offered to the appellant at the time of his arrest. There is no testimony herein relative to what such test revealed, if anything. It is also observed that the matter of having been offered such test was first brought out by the appellant’s attorney, and was not otherwise referred to except upon cross-examination of the State’s witness. It seems to us that this-is an attempt upon the part of the appellant to bring out upon cross-examination this matter to which he offers his obj ection and exception. It is not shown what the result of such test was and the State made no offer to do so. Under the authorities set out in 4 Tex.Jur. p. 309, sec. 215, these bills are insufficient to show any error.

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

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated and by the jury assessed a fine of $200.00,

The only matter complained of herein is relative to the testimony of a State’s witness that a urine test was offered to the appellant at the time of his arrest. There is no testimony herein relative to what such test revealed, if anything. It is also observed that the matter of having been offered such test was first brought out by the appellant’s attorney, and was not otherwise referred to except upon cross-examination of the State’s witness. It seems to us that this-is an attempt upon the part of the appellant to bring out upon cross-examination this matter to which he offers his obj ection and exception. It is not shown what the result of such test was and the State made no offer to do so. Under the authorities set out in 4 Tex.Jur. p. 309, sec. 215, these bills are insufficient to show any error.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.W.2d 166, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamlett-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack