Court Opinion

ID: 9778731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:18:04.433297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.865083
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to distinguish this case from the unanimous opinion of this Court in Vasquez v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 89, 311 S.W.2d 828, upon which appellant relies. In Vasquez, as in the case at bar, there was evidence that the accused had been drinking, but the only witness who testified that in his opinion appellant was intoxicated, arrived at his opinion from facts which were just as consistent with injury as with intoxication. In both cases there were other witnesses who had an opportunity to observe the appellant, and they were not called. The distinction sought to be made by the majority opinion is without validity.
I further dissent because appellant did not personally join in the stipulation as to the prior conviction.
I respectfully dissent.