Court Opinion

ID: 9767295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:05.705462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.222252
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge.
The conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, the jury having assessed a $50 fine as punishment.
There are two bills of exception, both relating to the admission of testimony of George M. Knox, one of the arresting officers, as to statements made by appellant, which the witness testified followed his detention or arrest.
The testimony complained of in Bill of Exception No. 1 appears to be identical with that of officer Truill on the same matter. The latter testimony having been admitted without objection, no reversible error is shown by this bill. See Mershon v. State, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 575, 155 SW(2) 372.
Bill of Exception No. 2 complains that Knox was permitted to testify that he asked appellant if he had had anything to drink, and that appellant replied, “I have had a few social drinks.”
In the absence of a showing in the bill that the conversation was not part of the res gestae, no error is shown. See Enix v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 106, 299 S. W. 430.
The state's testimony shows the guilt of appellant as charged. Appellant offered witnesses as to his good reputation as a law abiding citizen, but did not testify or offer testimony showing any defense to the charge for which he was on trial. The jury assessed the minimum punishment.
Finding n- reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.