Even though no one saw the accused driving at the time of the collision, this Court held that the evidence was direct that he was driving the automobile at the time and place in question and that a submission or charge of circumstantial evidence was not required. In Reneau v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. R., 321 S.W.2d 886, the conviction was for driving while intoxicated. No one saw the accused driving.
In another Warren v. State, 367 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.Cr.App. 1963), it was held that in absence of direct evidence that the defendant was the driver of the car in question he was entitled to an instruction on circumstantial evidence. For driving while intoxicated cases where it was held that under facts and circumstances presented no charge on circumstantial evidence was required, see Inness v. State, 106 Tex.Crim. 524, 293 S.W. 821; Garrison v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. 159, 114 S.W.2d 557; Kimbro v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. R., 249 S.W.2d 919; Humphrey v. State, 159 Tex.Crim. R., 264 S.W.2d 432; Smith v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 283 S.W.2d 936; Hayes v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 288 S.W.2d 771; Reneau v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. R., 321 S.W.2d 886; Flack v. State, 169 Tex.Crim. 201, 332 S.W.2d 704; Clark v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 456, 342 S.W.2d 332; Ratliff v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. R., 343 S.W.2d 465; Bailey v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. R., 349 S.W.2d 602; Johnson v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. R., 355 S.W.2d 191; Maghe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 377 S.W.2d 644. The alleged offense in the instant case occurred on March 29, 1969, and the trial commenced on September 9, 1970. Sgt. Cleckler was unable to identify the appellant.
Smith was positive in his identification, and no such charge was required. Reneau v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 321 S.W.2d 886. Appellant objected to the court's charge on alibi.
We find that the testimony constituted direct evidence of intoxication, and, as such, the state was not required to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of appellant. See Reneau v. State, 321 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Crim.App. 1959); Hayes v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 660, 288 S.W.2d 771 (1956). Appellant's sixth ground of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.