Court Opinion

ID: 4901756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-03 00:47:31.831674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:51:32.512155
License: Public Domain

We remain convinced that no error is shown by appellant's lone bill of exception.
The sheriff was properly permitted to testify that in his opinion appellant was drunk some three hours after his arrest. See Jones v. State, 130 Tex.Crim. R., 92 S.W.2d 246; King v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. R., 113 S.W.2d 181.
The surrounding circumstances as well as the time elapsed must be considered in passing upon the admissibility of testimony over the objection that it is too remote.
Appellant was in custody from the time of his arrest, and the circumstances are such as to exclude the belief that he had consumed intoxicants after the alleged offense. *Page 214 
Under such circumstances the fact that three hours had elapsed since the time of the alleged offense would not condemn the testimony as too remote. The weight of the evidence, was of course, for the jury.
Appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled.