Court Opinion

ID: 9777225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:03:07.077941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:50.473313
License: Public Domain

BELCHER, Judge.
This is a conviction for unlawfully operating an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment,- six months in jail and a fine of $100.
The state’s proof shows that appellant was operating an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated at the time and place as charged.
Appellant did not testify but offered Thomas J. King, who testified that they had been drinking wine and that appellant was driving until they picked up a hitch-hiker about sixty miles from where they had trouble with the automobile, and that the hitch-hiker drove after he was with them. He further stated while on direct examination that he was arrested, placed in jail and that the officers took him before the court the *54next morning; that “They did not fine me for drunkenness, * * * they said I was drunk, but the judge did not fine me or make me pay a fine. * * * I was not drunk but I had been drinking.”
The state offered the testimony of Henry F. Long, Justice of the Peace, in rebuttal of witness King’s testimony in regard to what occurred when he appeared before him as justice of the peace, and he testified: “I know Thomas J. King, he was brought before my court on a charge of drunkenness * * *; I fined him for drunkenness. * * * I know that he was fined in my court for drunkenness and either paid the fine or went to jail to serve it out.”
Appellant timely objected to the introduction of the above testimony by the witness Long on the ground that it would be impeaching the witness King on an immaterial issue, and was prejudicial in that it would cause the jury to not believe him on material issues concerning the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Appellant having proved on direct examination by the witness King certain matters that took place when he appeared in Long’s court is not in position to complain of the state further showing what occurred at such time in regard to the same matters. Art. 728, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.; Venn v. State, 78 Texas Cr. R. 545, 182 S.W. 315; Tischmacher v. State, 153 Texas Cr. R. 481, 221 S.W. 2d 258.
The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.