Court Opinion

ID: 9760714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:09:55.450386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:16.286855
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority opinion does not mention certain evidence which marks this case unusual, namely that the appellant testified that he had taken six drinks of whisky prior to his arrest from the practically empty bottle found in the glove compartment of his car, and did not deny that he failed to stop at the stop sign.
Appellant and his witnesses testified, however, that he was sober and denied that he staggered or talked with a thick tongue, as the arresting officer said he did.
The statement attributed to appellant to the effect that he *418knew he had had too much to drink must be appraised in the light of his admission that he had consumed as many as six drinks of whisky during the afternoon and evening.
Lamkin v. State, 136 Texas Cr. Rep. 99, 123 S.W. 2d 662, is cited and relied upon by the state as supporting the view that the court did not err in admitting the statement as res gestae. Appellant argues that the Lamkin case should be overruled. It was cited with approval in Fowler v. State, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 513, 287 S.W. 2d 665.
In the Lamkin case the arresting officer testified that Lamkin talked all the way to the jail and said he was “drunk as hell.” The objection was that Lamkin was under arrest. On appeal this court held that the statement was res gestae and found no error in its admission.
Trammell v. State, 145 Texas Cr. Rep. 224, 167 S.W. 2d 171, is cited in the majority opinion. In that case Trammell sought to introduce a self-serving statement he claimed to have made to the doctor some 30 minutes after the killing. The opinion calls attention to the fact that prior to the statement to the doctor, Trammel had been with Pearse and had conversed with the doctor in his presence. The statement sought to be admitted this court found lacking in spontaneity, which they said was demonstrated by the studied conversation with the doctor prior to the making of the self-serving statement and his conversation with Pearse prior to their arrival at the hospital.
The rule is that the appellate court will presume any statements testified to were made at a time and place and under circumstances which render them admissible. Leahy v. State, 111 Texas Cr. Rep. 570, 13 S.W. 2d 874.
Otherwise stated, the burden on appeal is upon the appellant to set out facts showing the inadmissibility of the evidence admitted over his objection, and in the absence of such showing it will be presumed that the trial court properly admitted evidence such as declarations admitted as res gestae statements. Manning v. State, 51 Texas Cr. Rep. 211, 98 S.W. 251; Gaunce v. State, 97 Texas Cr. Rep. 365; 261 S.W. 577; Thomason v. State, 105 Texas Cr. Rep. 119, 286 S.W. 1104; Thomas v. State, 108 Texas Cr. Rep. 131, 299 S.W. 408.
This record does not show that the trial court’s ruling admitting the statement as res gestae was erroneous.