Case Name: V. P. Scoggins v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-11-19
Citations: 98 Tex. Crim. 546
Docket Number: No. 8400
Parties: V. P. Scoggins v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 546–548

Head Matter:
V. P. Scoggins v. The State.
No. 8400.
Delivered November 19, 1924.
Rehearing denied December -17, 1924.
1. —Driving an Auto- while intoxicated — Indictment—-Sufficient.
The indictment in this cause is similar to that passed upon by this court in Nelson vs. State 261 S. W. Rep-. 1046, in which both the law, and the indictment were held valid.
2. —Same—Charge of Court — Defining “Intoxication” — Not Called For.
The evidence is uncontradicted that the appellant was drunk, and was staggering. Under these circumstances the omission of the definition of the term “intoxicated” is not error requiring reversal.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, of Dallas County. Tried below before the Hon. Chas. A. Pippen, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for driving an automobile' while intoxicated; penalty fine of one dollar, and confinement in the county jail for a period of ninety days.
Hughes & Monroe, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
— The offense is driving an automobile while intoxicated; punishment fixed at a fine of one dollar and confinement in the county jail for a period of ninety days.
The attack upon the indictment and the statute upon which the prosecution is founded is not unlike that passed on by this court in Nelson v. State, 261 S. W. Rep. 1046, in which both the law and the indictment were held valid.
The evidence was all one way to the effect that the appellant was drunk and was staggering. Under these circumstances the omission of the definition of the term "intoxicated" is not deemed error requiring a reversal.
Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.