Tabb v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Tabb v. State

229 S.W.2d 628, 154 Tex. Crim. 613, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2178

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 19, 1950

Docket24719

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 229 S.W.2d 628 (Tabb 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

Tabb v. State, 229 S.W.2d 628, 154 Tex. Crim. 613, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2178 (Tex. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of fifty dollars for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated.

[614]*614This record comes to the court with two hundred and sixty-four pages in the transcript. In addition thereto, a number of instruments have been tendered for original filing in this court. All pleading is made in the trial court and none may be filed in the court of criminal appeals. The statement of facts consists of one hundred and ten pages and appellant’s brief contains ninety-two printed pages. There are fifty-one bills of exception in the record, which we have examined very carefully and it is our conclusion that neither bill presents a question of law requiring any discussion by this court, under the charge for which appellant was convicted.

The pertinent facts of the case produced by the state show that appellant was intoxicated, driving on a highway about three and a half miles east of Breckenridge where he was arrested and taken to the county jail and incarcerated for the night. Two officers, made the arrest. One took appellant in the officers’ car while the other drove appellant’s car into town. The officer in charge of appellant’s car after the arrest saw a bottle in it containing some whisky. He took charge of this and brought it to court to be used as a circumstance corroborating the state’s evidence that he was intoxicated.

Appellant’s testimony pertinent to the issues in the case consists of a denial that he was intoxicated. All other issues raised and attempted to be raised have no place whatsoever in the record. We see no purpose for them in the record and certainly no reason why we should discuss them. The effort in the trial of the case to show the general practices of the officers in the county in making arrests on highways for offenses of this nature, their success or failure in securing prosecutions in other cases, the instructions which they receive from the department of public safety, and the general system of that department in law enforcement, comprise chiefly the matter which appellant sought vainly to inject into this case and furnish the basis for many bills of exception.

Appellant’s complaint of the treatment received by him from the clerk of the trial court does not present a matter of which this court has jurisdiction. While it appears that the clerk wrongfully required him to pay for his transcript, that is a matter of private interest which has nothing to do with the issue this court can pass upon.

The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not appellant was intoxicated, and that was the only pertinent issue in the case. The evidence presented by the state was admissible and [615]*615we find nothing excluded by the court which appellant was entitled to have. It was the province of the jury to pass upon fact issues.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of fifty dollars for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated.

[614]*614This record comes to the court with two hundred and sixty-four pages in the transcript. In addition thereto, a number of instruments have been tendered for original filing in this court. All pleading is made in the trial court and none may be filed in the court of criminal appeals. The statement of facts consists of one hundred and ten pages and appellant’s brief contains ninety-two printed pages. There are fifty-one bills of exception in the record, which we have examined very carefully and it is our conclusion that neither bill presents a question of law requiring any discussion by this court, under the charge for which appellant was convicted.

The pertinent facts of the case produced by the state show that appellant was intoxicated, driving on a highway about three and a half miles east of Breckenridge where he was arrested and taken to the county jail and incarcerated for the night. Two officers, made the arrest. One took appellant in the officers’ car while the other drove appellant’s car into town. The officer in charge of appellant’s car after the arrest saw a bottle in it containing some whisky. He took charge of this and brought it to court to be used as a circumstance corroborating the state’s evidence that he was intoxicated.

Appellant’s testimony pertinent to the issues in the case consists of a denial that he was intoxicated. All other issues raised and attempted to be raised have no place whatsoever in the record. We see no purpose for them in the record and certainly no reason why we should discuss them. The effort in the trial of the case to show the general practices of the officers in the county in making arrests on highways for offenses of this nature, their success or failure in securing prosecutions in other cases, the instructions which they receive from the department of public safety, and the general system of that department in law enforcement, comprise chiefly the matter which appellant sought vainly to inject into this case and furnish the basis for many bills of exception.

Appellant’s complaint of the treatment received by him from the clerk of the trial court does not present a matter of which this court has jurisdiction. While it appears that the clerk wrongfully required him to pay for his transcript, that is a matter of private interest which has nothing to do with the issue this court can pass upon.

The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not appellant was intoxicated, and that was the only pertinent issue in the case. The evidence presented by the state was admissible and [615]*615we find nothing excluded by the court which appellant was entitled to have. It was the province of the jury to pass upon fact issues.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.2d 628, 154 Tex. Crim. 613, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tabb-v-state-texcrimapp-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack