Court Opinion

ID: 9647954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:56:42.211989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:54.907812
License: Public Domain

BELCHER, Judge.
The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $50.00.
The testimony of two highway patrolmen shows that the appellant was intoxicated while driving his automobile upon a public highway between Crystal City and Carrizo Springs.
Appellant testifying in his own behalf denied that he was intoxicated at the time in question but admitted drinking two or three bottles of beer during the afternoon before he was apprehended about 5:30 P.M. He called several witnesses who testified that they saw him within a short time after his arrest and that he was not then intoxicated.
Appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to sus*304tain the conviction because the state failed to prove venue, that is, it failed to prove that the offense occurred in Dimmit County as alleged.
Formal Bill of Exception No. 1 shows that when all the evidence by both parties had closed appellant moved for an instructed verdict on the ground that the evidence was “wholly insufficient to sustain a finding- of all the essential elements of the offense charged,” but the motion contained no allegation of the failure to prove venue. The motion was overruled and appellant excepted.
Formal Bill of Exception No. 2 shows that after the return and receipt of the jury’s verdict appellant presented what he designates as his motion for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict wherein he re-urges his contentions presented in his motion for an instructed verdict, and further insists that there was no evidence that the offense occurred in Dimmit County as alleged which motion was overruled and exception reserved.
The record fails to show that the attention of the trial court was directed to the failure of the state to prove venue prior to the return and receipt of the verdict of the jury. Neither of said bills of exception show that venue was made an issue in the trial court. Art. 847, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., in part provides: “The Court of Criminal Appeals * * * shall presume that the venue was proven in the court below; * * * unless such matters were made an issue in the court below, and it affirmatively appears * * * by a bill of exceptions.” If venue was to be made an issue, it should have been made so during the trial of the case. Therefore no error is here presented. 4 Texas Jur. 184, Sec. 133; 4 Texas Jur. 369, Sec. 249; Wilson v. State, 92 Texas Cr. Rep. 30, 241 S.W. 150; Tullos v. State, 99 Texas Cr. Rep. 551, 270 S.W. 1021; Lawrence v. State, 117 Texas Cr. Rep. 228, 36 S.W. 2d 1018; Cantrell v. State, 129 Texas Cr. Rep. 240, 86 S.W. 2d 777; Valdez v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 192, 240 S.W. 2d 320; Dickey v. State, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 322, 284 S.W. 2d 901.
The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.