Martin v. State

731 S.W.2d 630, 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 7125

Opinions

OPINION

SAM BASS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction for speeding.

We reverse and order acquittal.

Trial was held before a municipal court judge, and punishment was a fine of $55. Appellant gave notice of appeal to the County Criminal Court at Law. Trial was before the bench, appellant was found guilty, and was fined $101.

In points of error one and two, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the State failed to prove and introduce into evidence the Taylor Lake Village municipal traffic ordinance.

The record reveals that the appellant was charged by a complaint filed pursuant to an ordinance of Taylor Lake Village. The only evidence in the record regarding the ordinance is from Officer J.D. Stone. Officer Stone testified that there were signs posted in Taylor Lake, with a speed limit of 20 miles per hour.

The ordinance was not introduced into evidence, there was no agreement to stipulate to the contents of the municipal ordinance, nor was there a request that judicial notice be taken of the ordinance. See Tex. R.Crim.Evid. 204.

In Howeth v. State, 645 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), the defendant was charged with speeding and was convicted in municipal court under a municipal ordinance. He appealed and at the trial de novo, the State and defendant stipulated to the contents of the municipal ordinance; however, the contents were never stated into the record. The county court found him guilty and assessed punishment. On appeal, however, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and acquitted because the contents of the ordinance, although stipulated to, were not introduced into evidence.

Points of error one and two are sustained.

This cause having been decided upon points of error one and two, there is no necessity to rule upon the remaining point of error.

The conviction is reversed and acquittal ordered.

EVANS, C.J., dissents.