TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bell v. State

Roy Bell v. State

Bell v. State, 288 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 8, 1956
Docket
No. 27,325
Judges
Morrison
Citations
288 S.W.2d 87162 Tex. Crim. 5101956 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1269

Opinion of the Court — Morrison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.00.

• Our original opinion herein is withdrawn. In view of our present disposition of this cause, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary other than to observe that during the trial jailer Fenoglio was offered as a witness by the appellant. The state’s witnesses had testified that the appellant was arrested some time after five o’clock on the afternoon in question. When Fenoglio was called, he stated that he had seen the appellant in jail between 6:30 and 7:00 o’clock. The state objected to Fenoglio’s testimony as to the appellant’s state of intoxication on the grounds that the time he saw the appellant was too remote from the time of arrest, and such objection was sustained. In so ruling, the trial court was clearly in error. The cases are innumerable where this court has authorized the admission into evidence of testimony of the jailer as to the condition of intoxication of an accused after he has been placed in jail.

At the time the motion for new trial was heard, the appellant perfected his bill of exception by incorporating therein the testimony of jailer Fenoglio. Such testimony would have been material to appellant’s defense on the closely drawn issue of intoxication.

We have concluded that reversible error is reflected by the aciton of the court in refusing to permit Fenoglio to testify.

The motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1956: 11966: 119562026peak 1956 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Floyd v. State164 Tex. Crim. 50 (1966)
  2. Floyd v. State296 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)

Most recent

  1. Floyd v. State164 Tex. Crim. 50 (1966)
  2. Floyd v. State296 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list