Case Name: McDANIEL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-11-10
Citations: 288 S.W. 1081
Docket Number: No. 10361
Parties: McDANIEL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 288
Pages: 1081–1082

Head Matter:
McDANIEL v. STATE.
(No. 10361.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 10, 1926.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1926.)
Mays & Mays, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction in criminal district court of Tarrant county of negligent homicide; punishment fixed at a fine of §1,000.
Appellant was on trial charged with the murder of one Roy Green. The state's theory was that appellant, following an altercation and a misunderstanding between the parties, deliberately and intending to kill Roy Green, ran over the latter with an automobile. It was a part of the state's theory that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time. The court submitted, in addition to the law of murder, the law of lessor degrees of homicide, including negligent homicide of the first and second degrees. The verdict of the jury found appellant guilty of negligent homicide of the first degree.
In all of his bills of exception, and also in his brief filed in this court, and by argument orally, appellant attacks 'the action of the court below in admitting the testimony of a number of witnesses as to the use of whisky by appellant on the afternoon and night of the alleged homicide. We are unable to agree with appellant that any of these bills show error. The state could not anticipate what the verdict of the jury would be upon the facts, and, in support of that part of its case wherein appellant was charged with negligent homicide of the second degree, it would be necessary to show that appellant was engaged in some unlawful act at the time Green was. killed. The driving of an automobile while in a state of intoxication is a violation of the law of this state, as is also the possession and transportation of intoxicating liquor, and, as we view the matter, the state might have made the proof objected to in an effort to support conviction upon the theory that appellant was violating the law at the time of the homicide. Believing that none of said bills of exception present error that would justify a reversal of the ease, we are unable to agree with the contention made by appellant.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.