Case Name: SHEPHERD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1943-03-17
Citations: 171 S.W.2d 120
Docket Number: No. 22438
Parties: SHEPHERD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 171
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
SHEPHERD v. STATE.
No. 22438.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 17, 1943.
Rehearing Denied May 12, 1943.
Aubrey Morris, of Waco, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.
Conviction is for an aggravated assault, punishment assessed at a fine of $250 and confinement in the county jail for sixty days.
Prosecution is under Art. 1149, P.C, The State's evidence shows that officers pursued appellant some thirty miles from a point in Williamson County to the point of the collision near the city of Lampasas, where appellant's car struck one being driven by the injured party. Sometimes during the chase the officers claimed the speedometer on their car registered between 80 and 90 miles per hour. Appellant did not testify, but witnesses who were in his car denied an excessive rate of speed, and asserted that the collision was caused by the officers' car striking the rear of appellant's car which threw it out of control and in the path of the car driven by the injured party.
Over appellant's objection the State proved by the officers that after the collision occurred they found whisky in appellant's car, some on the front seat between appellant and his wife and other on the back seat between two parties who' were on that seat. The objection urged was on the ground that said evidence was "improper, inflammatory and prejudicial, and not admissible for any purpose." There seems to have been no claim that appellant was drunk at the time of the collision, nor is there anything in the record showing that appellant was violating any law in having the whisky in the car.
The bill complaining of such evidence might present a question under the authority of Wortham v. State, 95 Tex, Cr.R. 135, 252 S.W. 1063, if it were not for the fact that upon the' cross examination of one of appellant's witnesses there was developed without objection that there was whisky in the car. It is well established that the erroneous admission of testimony is not cause for reversal if the same fact is in evidence without objection. See Bryant v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 32, 2 S.W.2d 846, and authorities therein cited.
The judgment is affirmed.