Case ID: sw_294/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIM0RE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CLAER v. STATE.
    (No. 10380.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 23, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied May 11, 1927.
    1, Licenses <3=8(2) — Defendant may he tried for driving automobile without license plates after statutes omitting ■ section relative to such offense took effect, where offense was committed before such time (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1918, art. 820aa; Pen. Code 1925, art. 17).
    Defendant may be tried for driving automobile without license plates contrary to Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1918, art. 820aa, after Revised Criminal Statutes 1925, became effective, though such article was omitted therefrom, where offense was committed before such time, in view of Pen. Code 1925, art. 17, providing that no offense committed under existing laws should be affected by repeal of such laws therein.
    2. Criminal law <3=1120(8) — Testimony that witness saw defendant drive without license “before we had the conversation” held not error, where bill did not show conversation nor relevancy.
    In prosecution for driving automobile without license plhtes, admission of testimony that witness saw defendant operating without license “before we had the conversation” held 
      not error, where bill did not show what conversation was nor relevance of testimony objected to,
    3. Licenses <@=»42 (4) — Testimony witness saw accused operate automobile without license number held material.
    In prosecution for driving automobile without license plates, it was material to prove by some witness that he had seen defendant operating car without license number.
    4. Criminal law <©=>1120'C I) — Bill complaining of exclusion of evidence held to sh.ow no error, where answer was made and not shown to have been excluded.
    In prosecution for driving automobile without license plates, bill complaining of refusal to permit defendant to make certain statement held to show no error, where answer was made and not shown to have been excluded.
    5. Licenses >42(4) — Evidence as to defendant’s intention in driving automobile without license plates held inadmissible.
    In prosecution for driving automobile without license plates, evidence as to what defendant’s intention was in regard to violating law held inadmissible.
    6. Licenses <@=»42(,5) — Evidence of driving automobile without license plates held for jury.
    Evidence held sufficient to take case to jury, in prosecution for driving motor vehicle on public highway without license plates.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    7. Criminal law .®=»l 169(11) — In prosecution for driving automobile without license plates, admission of officer’s testimony that he saw defendant driving without license on several occasions held not injurious to defendant.
    In prosecution for driving automobile on public highway without license plates, admission of officer’s testimony that he saw defendant drive truck without license on more than one occasion held not injurious to defendant, where he admitted he had been driving for quite a while without license and jury gave lowest fine.
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; B. D. Sartin, Judge.
    Bob daer was convicted of driving an automobile without having a number on the rear and one on the front, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Heyser & Hicks, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIM0RE, J.

Conviction for driving an automobile without having a number on the rear and one on the front; punishment, fine of $25.

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.

Article 820aa of the Penal Code of Texas of 1918 (Vernon’s) 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 article 820aa. Article 17 of the 1925 P. C., which became effective on September 1st of said year, specifically provides that no offense committed and no fine, forfeiture, or penalty, incurred under existing laws 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 ear 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 we 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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant brings forward hut 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. 
      <©n>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      @=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests, and Indexes