Case Name: George McCall Piester v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1955-02-09
Citations: 161 Tex. Crim. 436
Docket Number: No. 27,391
Parties: George McCall Piester v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 436–438

Head Matter:
George McCall Piester v. State
No. 27,391.
February 9, 1955
Rehearing Denied March 30, 1955
Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) April 27, 1955
Albert S. Reagan, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Criminal District Attorney, H. L. Brotherton, and Charles S. Potts, Assistants Criminal District Attorney, Dallas, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, for the state.

Opinion:
BELCHER, Judge.
This conviction is for the offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 60 days in jail and a fine of $50.
Deputy Sheriff Chaffin testified that appellant, while driving his automobile, failed to observe a stop sign upon entering Highway 80, then drove in an' erratic manner for about 300 yards upon said highway and stopped after the sounding of the siren; that appellant could not speak plainly, his eyes were dilated, and that he staggered while walking; that appellant stated to him that he had been drinking; that he smelled the odor of alcohol on appellant's breath, and further stated that in his opinion appellant was intoxicated.
Dr. Mason, toxicologist for the city and county of Dallas, testified that the specimen of appellant's blood, which was obtained with appellant's consent and which was properly identified, contained an alcoholic concentration of 0.259 per cent. He further expressed the opinion that any person having such a concentration of alcohol in his blood would be under the influence of alcohol.
Appellant testified in his own behalf stating that he had drunk three beers during the evening but that he was not intoxicated.
Appellant offered two witnesses who testified that they were with appellant for a period of about three hours shortly before his arrest and stated that appellant was not intoxicated.
The jury resolved the issue of appellant's intoxication against him, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict.
There are no formal bills of exception. We have examined the informal bills and are of the opinion that they do not reflect error.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.