Milligan v. State

243 S.W.2d 581, 156 Tex. Crim. 448, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1633
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 14, 1951
DocketNo. 25467
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 S.W.2d 581 (Milligan 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
Milligan v. State, 243 S.W.2d 581, 156 Tex. Crim. 448, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1633 (Tex. 1951).

Opinion

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, the jury having assessed the punishment at 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The state’s evidence shows that appellant, while driving an [449]*449automobile on a public highway in the early morning, ran through a detour barricade where a railroad crossing was under construction.

Several witnesses testified that appellant was intoxicated and a bottle partly filled with whiskey was taken from his person.

Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence in his behalf.

Objections to the court’s charge were directed to the opening paragraph thereof wherein the jury was informed of the nature of the charge, the defendant’s plea, and the presumption of innocence.

In support of such objection, this being a misdemeanor case, appellant requested a special charge to be given in lieu of paragraph 1. Appellant excepted to the overruling of his objection and to the refusal of his requested charge.

The requested charge is confined to an application of the law to the facts. The court’s charge applied the law in paragraph 4 of his charge and not in paragraph 1. The requested charge was therefore on another and different subject, and the trial court correctly declined to substitute the requested charge for his paragraph 1. Had he done so, the charge would have twice instructed the jury on the application of the law to the facts, and would have omitted any reference to the nature of the charge, the defendant’s plea or the presumption of innocence.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

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

Related

Huckert v. State
264 S.W.2d 121 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 S.W.2d 581, 156 Tex. Crim. 448, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milligan-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.