MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is driving while intoxicated as a second offender; the punishment, six months in jail and a fine of $250.
The sole question presented for review is whether an indictment charging one with driving a puckup truck while intoxicated will be supported by the following proof: 'Q. State whether or not you observed whether Mr. Lee was driving any kind of a motor vehicle? A. Yes, he was driving a yellow Dodge pickup."
We have concluded that we may take judicial knowledge of the fact that a Dodge pickup which is a motor vehicle is a pickup truck.
In Nichols v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. R., 242 S.W.2d 396, 397, we held that the term 'automobile' was a 'generic term which includes the motor vehicle commonly known as a 'truck." By the same token, we have concluded that we should hold that when a question about a motor vehicle is answered in the affirmative by saying that the accused was driving a Dodge pickup such proof is sufficient to establish that it was a Dodge pickup truck which was in question.
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.