Case Name: Wallace Edwin McEATHRON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1956-10-03
Citations: 294 S.W.2d 822
Docket Number: No. 27739
Parties: Wallace Edwin McEATHRON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 294
Pages: 822–828

Head Matter:
Wallace Edwin McEATHRON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 27739.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 3, 1956.
J. T. Kelley, Jr., Russell' F. Wolters, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, •and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys,, Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., • Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
All prior opinions are .withdrawn.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment; 10 days in jail arid a fine of $150.
The issue of whether appellant was intoxicated at the time in question was closely contested, but there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury.
Appellant contends that the testimony of-the State's witnesses on the issue was obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest and therefore inadmissible. This presents the only serious question on the appeal.
Air Force Captain Barber observed appellant driving an automobile at a high rate of speed, saw him lose control of the car and on three occasions strike the esplanade, saw him drive through red traffic lights, narrowly missing cars awaiting the signal to proceed. He observed' that' appellant was drinking from a' bottle as ' he was •driving along the Freeway.
He testified that when the appellant passed him the second time at a high rate of speed, cut back in front of him sharply, .and again collided with the esplanade, he pursued him in an effort to get his license number and report it to the police.
After appellant's car swerved front the road and came to a stop.Barber observed him, concluded that he was intoxicated,' and detained him- until an officer arrived.
Barber and other witnesses who testified for the State based their opinion as to appellant's intoxicated condition'on their observation of. him while he was being so detained.
We were so unpleasantly distracted by the' witness Barber, who, among other things, bragged that his conduct in arresting the appellant, would, look good to his commanding officer, that we overlooked the-simple mandate of the statutes and the. holdings of this Court in Cook v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 238 S.W.2d 200, Morgan v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 262 S.W. 2d 713, and Rent v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 326, 268 S.W.2d 674; and the case of Clark v. West, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d 569.
Article 212, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., authorizes : an arrest by a private citizen for an " ,'offense against the , public •peace.' "
Title 9 of the Penal Code is entitled "Offenses against the public peace".'
Chapter-3 of T-itle 9 enumerates "Affrays and disturbances of the peace".
Article 477, Vernon's Ann.P.C., is within that .chapter and reads'as follows:
"Whoever shall get drunk' or be found in a state of intoxication in any. public place, or: at any private house except his own, shall be fined. not exceeding one hundred dollars."
If .a man is found in a conditior, described in the foregoing statute while on foot, he is subject to arrest by a.private citizen by virtue of the statute. Surely, then, if he is in 'such condition in an automobile, the right to' arrest is the same.
The arrest being- .lawful-, the > testimony of those who observed the appellant following his arrest was admissible.
Finding nó reversible error, the appellant's motion for -rehearing.. is overruled, and,the judgment of'the trial court is,,now affirmed.