Kendrick v. State

238 S.W.2d 964, 156 Tex. Crim. 97, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1491

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 28, 1951
• Docket: 25159
• Status: Published

Opinions

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for murder without malice under Art. 802(c), Vernon’s Ann. P.C., the indictment charging that while engaged in the operation of an automobile upon a public highway in Harrison County, by accident and mistake, he caused such automobile to collide with an automobile occupied by Martha Ann Hickey and thereby caused her death.

The accident occurred in Harrison County while appellant’s car was traveling on its left side of the highway and the automobile in which the deceased was riding was being driven on its right side of said highway in the opposite direction. Miss Hickey died in a hospital at Longview, in Gregg County, as a result of the collision.

The state’s witnesses testified that appellant was, in their opinion, under the influence of beer or intoxicating liquor at the time of the collision, while some of the witnesses offered by appellant tended to show that he was not drunk.

The jury resolved such issue against appellant, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain their finding is not challenged.

We find no objections to the court’s charge in the record, but there are thirteen bills of exception, some of which complain of the charge.

Bill No. 1 complains of the overruling of appellant’s motion for continuance based upon the absence of witnesses.

The motion for continuance was signed by appellant and sworn to before his attorney. Such an affidavit may not be considered. See Botts v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 652, 13 S.W. 2d 846; Wills v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 342, 13 S.W. 2d 380.

Bills of Exception 2 to 8, inclusive, are addressed to the court’s charge, and each bill is qualified so as to show that no objection or exceptions were interposed to the charge as prepared and read to the jury. We find no error in the charge of a character which might be considered by this court in the absence of a timely objection.

Bill of Exception No. 9 complains that the Witness Clark was permitted to testify that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor without a proper predicate being laid therefor. This witness testified that after the accident he went up to appellant and looked at him; that he found beer scattered over the inside of appellant’s car. He further testified on cross examination that he smelled intoxicating liquor on appellant’s breath; that he based his conclusion that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor on his actions, his talk and the fact that he smelled liquor.

A nonexpert witness may testify that the accused or some other person was intoxicated at a certain time.

Also, a witness not an expert may give his opinion as to whether or not a person is intoxicated if it be shown that the witness had the opportunity to observe the facts upon which he bases his opinion. See Inness v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 524, 527, 293 S.W. 821.

The witness, according to his testimony, had the opportunity to observe appellant and no error is shown by this bill.

The remaining bills disclose no error and will be overruled without discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.