Court Opinion

ID: 9667068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:34:19.9679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.663299
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
*506MORRISON, Judge.
On motion for rehearing, appellant presents what to us is a novel contention. He sets forth that portion of the court’s charge in which the court defined intoxication. He does not complain about the same, not having objected thereto in the trial court, but now says that the proof offered by the state does not meet the definition contained in the charge.
The charge read as follows: “A person is deemed intoxicated within the meaning of the law defining the offense charged against the defendant, when such person does not have the normal use of his physical and mental faculties by reason of the use of intoxicating liquor.”
This court has held that such a definition is not necessary, but that giving one, substantially the same as shown above, is not error. Lockhart v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 1 S. W. (2d) 894. However, we call attention to the fact that the arresting officer testified, in part, as follows: “When I stood about one foot distant from Grooms I smelled liquor, Grooms was thick tongued and didn’t talk coherently. I concluded that he was drunk.”
Appellant’s contention may best be answered by a proper realization of what determines the issue in a criminal case. The issue is determined by the indictment or information and appellant’s plea thereto. The charge of the court cannot change or limit the issue thus joined.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.