From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Oct 30, 1968
432 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)

Summary

finding evidence that the defendant was sitting alone in the driver's seat sufficient to show that the defendant operated the motor vehicle

Summary of this case from Chavez v. State

Opinion

No. 41509.

October 30, 1968.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, El Paso County, George Rodriguez, J.

Ramon Ramos, Jr., El Paso, for appellant.

Jack N. Fant, County Atty., D. L. Armstrong, Asst. County Atty., El Paso, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., austin, for the State.


OPINION


The conviction was for driving while intoxicated; the punishment assessed by a jury was seven days in the county jail and a fine of one hundred dollars.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that one of the elements of the offense charged is that the accused must have been driving a motor vehicle upon a public road, and that the only evidence offered to prove this element was an admission of the appellant. The appellant further contends that the law requires any admission of an accused, if said admission is that which established the corpus delicti or any of its elements, must be corroborated, and if not corroborated, the accused may not be found guilty of the offense charged, and the court's refusal to so charge the jury was error.

The evidence reveals that shortly after midnight, Benito Juarez came out of his residence about fifteen seconds after hearing 'a lot of scraping, and breaking and racket.' Juarez found that an automobile with the appellant seated behind the steering wheel had crashed into his car and front porch. Juarez testified that the appellant was the only person in the car when he came out of his house. Officer Martinez of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department testified that when he arrived at the scene he found an automobile in the front yard, and found tire tracks leading from a black-top road in front of the residence. The officer also testified that a tree and a fence had been torn down and that a car belonging to Juarez had been damaged. It was further shown that the black-top road was a public road in the county of El Paso. Juarez and Officer Martinez both testified that the appellant was intoxicated. When Officer Martinez arrived at the scene, the appellant immedidately identified himself as being the driver of the vehicle which had crashed into the yard and porch.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.

The facts and circumstances in evidence are sufficient, independent of appellant's admission, to authorize the finding that the appellant was driving the car as alleged; and such independent proof sufficiently corroborates his admission that he was the driver of the car. The grounds of error are overruled. Rios v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 281.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Perez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Oct 30, 1968
432 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)

finding evidence that the defendant was sitting alone in the driver's seat sufficient to show that the defendant operated the motor vehicle

Summary of this case from Chavez v. State

concluding evidence showing the appellant was alone in the driver's seat of a vehicle that had crashed into the side of a house was sufficient to support a finding that appellant was driving the vehicle

Summary of this case from Vedia v. State

using witness's statement that he only saw defendant sitting in a car immediately after a crash in sufficiency analysis to prove that defendant was the driver

Summary of this case from Starnes v. State

In Perez v. State, 432 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Crim.App. 1968) the court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient, independent of the admissions of the accused, to prove he was driving the vehicle in question, where immediately after an accident, his vehicle was found crashed into a parked car in the front yard, with tire tracks leading from the said vehicle back to a torn down fence and tree and onto the roadway.

Summary of this case from Hernandez v. State

In Perez, sufficient corroboration was provided by a witness who heard "a lot of scraping, and breaking and racket" and immediately came out of his house to find that a car, containing only the defendant, had crashed into his porch.

Summary of this case from Coleman v. State
Case details for

Perez v. State

Case Details

Full title:David Ramirez PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Oct 30, 1968

Citations

432 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)

Citing Cases

Young v. State

The instant case is distinguishable from those cases where the defendant is the only person in the car and…

Vedia v. State

This testimony, although circumstantial, corroborated Vedia's extrajudicial confession and reasonably…