Case ID: tex-crim_106/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bob Claer v. The State.
    No. 10380.
    Delivered March 23, 1927.
    Rehearing denied May 11, 1927.
    1. —Driving Auto Without Number — Statutes Construed.
    The offense with which appellant was charged was denounced by our statute at the time of its commission, but before his trial the revised code of 1925 became effective, in which this offense was omitted. However, Art. 17 of the revision of 1925 provides that no offense committed, etc., under existing laws, previous to the time when this code takes effect, shall be affected by the repeal herein of any such law, and appellant was properly convicted under the old law.
    2. —Same—Bill of Exception — Incomplete—No Error Presented.
    Where appellant complains in a bill of exception of the admission of a conversation between a witness and appellant, and the conversation is not disclosed in the bill, we are unable to appraise the value of the objection, and no error is presented.
    3. —Same—Bill of Exception — Incomplete—No Error Shown.
    Where appellant complains of the refusal of the court to permit him to explain what his intentions were in regard to violating the law when he drove his truck without a license number, but his bill fails to show that the testimony was excluded, and that the matter complained of did not go before the jury, no error is presented.
    ON REHEARING.
    4. —Same—Evidence—Properly Admitted.
    Where, on a trial for driving an auto without a license number plate thereon, the state was permitted to prove by the sheriff that he had seen appellant driving his truck without a license on more than one occasion, appellant having admitted himself that he had been driving the car for quite a while without a license, no error or injury is shown.
    Appeal from the County Court at Law of Wichita County. Tried below before the Hon. B. D. Sartin, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for driving an auto without a license number, penalty a fine of §25.00.
    
      The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for driving an automobile without having a number on the rear and one on the front, punishment fine of §25.00.

Complaint was filed in the county court at law of Wichita County against appellant in June, 1925, charging him with driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway in said county without having displayed, one on the front and the other on the back thereof, number plates corresponding to the distinctive number assigned said vehicle by the Highway Department of the State of Texas. The case was tried in April, 1926, after the taking effect of the Revised Criminal Statutes of Texas on September 1, 1925.

Art. 820aa of the Penal Code of Texas of 1918 specifically forbade one operating an automobile upon a public highway without having displayed upon the front and the back number plates corresponding with the number assigned to such car by the Highway Department of this state. The codifiers omitted from the statutes as compiled and adopted by the Thirty-Ninth Legislature said Art. 820aa. Art. 17 of the 1925 P. C., which became effective on September 1 of said year, specifically provides that no offense committed and no fine, forfeiture or penalty incurred under existing lawis previous to the time when this code takes effect' shall be affected by the repeal herein of any such laws, but the punishment of such offense * * * shall take place as if the law repealed had remained in force. We regard the provisions of this statute just referred to as applicable. Under the law as it existed at the time of the filing of this complaint, and under the testimony offered on behalf of the state upon this trial, we have no doubt but that there was a violation of the statute on the part of appellant. He is shown to have operated a car for a considerable time, upon the public highways of Wichita County, without having any number plates upon it at all.

There are three bills of exception in the record. No. 1 complains of the testimony of the witness Glenn, who said: “I had seen him before this operating without a license and on the Iowa Park road, and before w<e had the conversation.” We cannot tell from the bill what the conversation was, nor what the relevance of the testimony objected to might be. It certainly was material to prove by some witness that he had seen appellant operating his car without a license number. The bill reveals no error.

Bill of exceptions No. 2 complains of the refusal of the learned trial judge to permit appellant to state what his intention was in regard to violating the law when he drove his truck. The bill shows that the question was asked and the answer made. There is nothing to show that the answer was excluded. We think the question and answer would be improper, and if objection had been duly made it should have been sustained. It is not shown that the matter did not go before the jury. The remaining bill is to the refusal of an instructed verdict favorable to appellant. We perceive no error in this matter.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant brings forward but one claim in his motion, that being that we erred in upholding the action of the lower court in permitting the officer to testify that he had seen appellant driving his truck without license on more than one occasion. A careful review of the effect of this testimony does not lead us to change our minds. Appellant admitted himself that he had been driving the truck for quite a while without a license. The jury gave him the lowest fine. We are unable to perceive any injury.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Morrow, P. J., not sitting.

Overruled.