Case Name: EBBS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-12-16
Citations: 279 S.W. 829
Docket Number: No. 9131
Parties: EBBS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 279
Pages: 829–831

Head Matter:
EBBS v. STATE.
(No. 9131.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 16, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1926.)
H. M. Wade, of Rockwall, for appellant.
Carl G. Miller, Co. Atty., of Rockwall, and Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
-Appellant was .convicted in the county court of Rockwall county for the offense of unlawfully and with, gross negligence driving a motor vehicle upon a highway of the state, colliding with and causing injury to W. E. Goodman, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100.
The facts show that appellant, while attempting to pass the alleged injured party' on a public highway in Rockw.all county, permitted the car in which he was riding to collide with the truck in which the alleged injured party was riding, overturning the truck, and seriously injuring the alleged injured party.
By bill of exception No. 1 appellant complains at the court's action in refusing to quash the complaint and information. The complaint and information is in substantially the language of the statute, and the motion to quash was properly overruled. The record discloses that Miss Nealy Govey and Mrs. S. W. Govey were riding in the ear with Goodman, the alleged injured party, and that they also received injuries in the collision.
By bill of exception No. 2 appellant complains of the court's action in permitting the state to prove that these parties were also injured. This testimony was clearly a part of the res gdstas, and, as such, was admissible. Crews v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 533, 31 S. W. 373; Lee v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 162 S. W. 843. The same question is raised in a little different form by bill of exception No. 3, and our observations in regal'd to bill No. 2 disposes of same against the appellant's contention.
Bill of exception No. 4 complains of the court's action in permitting a witness to testify that about a week after the collision he had a conversation with the sheriff in which the sheriff told him over the telephone that he thought the man that hit Goodman was there. This witness was an eyewitness to the collision, and it seems that there had been some difficulty in identifying the appellant as the man who caused the collision. This bill shows nothing more than what we have indicated above. It fails to show that the appellant was the party whom the sheriff told witness he thought had caused the collision, and we see no possible harm to the appellant in its admission. The same question is presented in practically the same form in bill No. 5, and the views we have expressed with reference to bill No. 4 disposes of bill No. 5, contrary to appellant's contention.
We think the testimony is amply sufficient to support the verdict in the event the jury should adopt the 'state's theory of the case, and we therefore hold that the court did not err in refusing to peremptorily instruct the jury to acquit the defendant.
We have carefully considered the special charges offered by appellant, and,' so far as they are in conformity with the law, it is our opinion that they are fully covered by the court in his main charge to the jury.
Finding no error in the record, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed.
PER OURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.