Court Opinion

ID: 9681402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:49:43.761648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.756871
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
The state’s motion for rehearing suggests that this Court “now chooses to base its opinion upon the fact that a number of legislative bodies have found such legislation popular and a lesser number of Supreme Courts have found these statutes to be constitutional.”
To clarify our decision herein we direct attention to the opinion prepared by the writer on appellant’s motion for rehearing in Rowland v. State, 166 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 311 S.W. 2d 831, 836, which was the majority holding at the time it was handed down and is now re-affirmed.
Upon authority of said opinion and the cases there cited, we here hold: (1) That Art. 827a V,A.P.C., as amended in 1951 and again in 1955, as applied to the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway in this state in a business or residential district as therein defined, at a speed in excess of 30 miles per hour, which speed is greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing, is constitutional; and (2) appellant’s motion to quash the information should have been granted because of the absence of any allegation that the speed at which the accused was alleged to have driven was unreasonable or imprudent under the conditions then existing.
Judge Morrison’s reasons for joining in such holdings are stated in the opinion reversing the conviction herein.
Remaining convinced that the questions raised have been properly disposed of, the state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.