DocketNumber: No. 18610
Citation Numbers: 131 Tex. Crim. 381, 99 S.W.2d 604
Judges: Hawkins
Filed Date: 12/9/1936
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
It was charged against appellant that while intoxicated be drove an automobile upon a public highway, and while so driving said automobile he through accident or mistake killed L. V. Beck and G. B. Sinclair. Appellant was convicted and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of five years.
On the night of the accident the two partes killed, and other parties were in a truck driving towards Beaumont. The lights on the truck flickered and the truck was stopped on the side of the road, the right wheels being on the shoulder of the road and the left wheels being on the pavement. According to the evidence for the State the lights did not go out, and all were burning at the time of the accident. The car driven by appel
Upon the trial appellant denied being drunk, and while admitting that he undertook to pass the truck on the right hand side, explained it by saying the lights on the truck were out, that he did not discover the truck until he was near it, and that a car coming towards him lead him to believe that he could not pass the truck on the left hand side, and he drove on the right of the truck in order to avoid striking the car or the truck.
The issues raised by the testimony were fairly submitted and required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated and driving the car on a public highway at the time of the accident before he could be convicted. The jury was further instructed that although he was intoxicated, if he was operating the car in a proper manner he would not be guilty; and further, that if the accident resulted because of the manner in which the truck had been stopped on the highway and was not caused by any fault of appellant that he would not be guilty.
While the evidence was conflicting upon the question of appellant being intoxicated at the time of the accident, the State’s evidence upon the point was sufficient for the jury to predicate a finding that he was so intoxicated, and we would have no authority to overturn the finding of the jury upon the issue of fact.
In the motion for new trial we find a great many recitals
Under the record as presented an affirmance must be ordered, which is accordingly done.
Affirmed.