Case Name: Wallace Edwin McEathron v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1956-10-03
Citations: 163 Tex. Crim. 619
Docket Number: No. 27,739
Parties: Wallace Edwin McEathron v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 163
Pages: 619–629

Head Matter:
Wallace Edwin McEathron v. State
No. 27,739.
October 3, 1956.
Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Overruled (Without Written Opinion) November 21, 1956.
James T. Kelley, Jr. and Russell F. Wolters, Houston, for for appellant.
Dan Walton, District Attorney, Eugene Brady and Thomas D. White, Assistants District Attorney, Houston, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
All prior opinions are withdrawn.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 10 days in jail and a fine of $150.00.
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 from 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. Rep. 580, 238 S. W. 2d 200, Morgan v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. Rep. 231, 262 S. W. 2d 713, and Rent v. State, 160 Tex. Cr. Rep. 326, 268 S. W. 2d 674; and the case of Clark v. West, 126 S. W. 2d 569.
Article 212, V.A.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 Title 9 enumerates "Affrays and disturbances of the peace."
Article 477, V.A.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 condition 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 no reversible error, the appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is now affirmed.