Court Opinion

ID: 9639878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:50:36.84341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:49.765021
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that we erred in holding that under the testimony a charge on circumstantial evidence was not required.
A charge on circumstantial evidence is necessary only when the state’s case depends entirely upon circumstances for a conviction. Oakley v. State, 152 Tex. Or. R. 361, 214 S. W. (2d) 298; and Myers v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. R. 347, 263 S.W. (2d) 564.
*664Under the record, we remain convinced that the state’s proof of appellant’s intoxication did not depend upon circumstantial evidence and a charge thereon was not required. The testimony of the three officers who' observed appellant at the clinic after the collision, that they could smell alcohol on his breath, and who expressed their opinions that he was intoxicated, was equivalent to direct evidence on the issue of his intoxication while driving the pick-up on the occasion in question. See Richardson v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 403, 5 S.W. (2d) 141.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.