Shirley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Shirley v. State

243 S.W.2d 706, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2271

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 21, 1951

DocketNo. 25502

StatusPublished

This text of 243 S.W.2d 706 (Shirley 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

Shirley v. State, 243 S.W.2d 706, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2271 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $250'.00.

Two officers of the Department of Public Safety testified that they arrested appellant on the day charged in the information, that they smelled alcohol on his breath, that he staggered, and that he was intoxicated. Appellant offered a number of character witnesses who testified as to his general reputation as being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. Appellant testified in his own behalf, admitted that he had drunk several bottles of beer during the day, denied that he was intoxicated, and explained his staggering by testimony of an old injury to his leg.

The jury found against appellant’s contention that he was not intoxicated.

There are no bills of exception in the record.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $250'.00.

Two officers of the Department of Public Safety testified that they arrested appellant on the day charged in the information, that they smelled alcohol on his breath, that he staggered, and that he was intoxicated. Appellant offered a number of character witnesses who testified as to his general reputation as being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. Appellant testified in his own behalf, admitted that he had drunk several bottles of beer during the day, denied that he was intoxicated, and explained his staggering by testimony of an old injury to his leg.

The jury found against appellant’s contention that he was not intoxicated.

There are no bills of exception in the record.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.W.2d 706, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.