Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update

BY Richard Alpert Assistant Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County District Attorneys Office ralpert@tarrantcounty.com (Updated June 21, 2011)

TABLEOF CONTENTS

INFORMATION/CHARGING INSTRUMENT .... A. MENTALORPHYSICALFACULTIES.. .......1 "PUBLIC B. PLACE" SPECIFIC IS ENOUGH C. STATE DOES NOTHAVE SPECIFY TO WHICH DEFINITION OF INTOXICATIONIS RELYING INTHEINFORMATION IT ON D. NO MENTAL STATE NECESSARY DWICHARGE IN 1. PRE549.04 2. POST 549.04 E. UNOBJECTEDTOERRORINCHARGINGINSTRUMENT.. ........ F. R E A D I N G D WN H A N C E M E N T A T W R O N G T I M E . EI ........ fl.

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

v o t RD | R E ...... 2 A. PROPERQUESTION/STATEMENT.... ..:...2 B. IMPROPERQUESTION/STATEMENT.... ....3 C. CHALLENGE RCAUSE FO ..... 3 1. PRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE.... .......3 2. ONEWITNESSCASE ........3 3. JURORSWHO WOULD REQUIRE BREATH TESTTO . CONVICT . . . . . . . . 4 4. J U R O R ' S A B I L I T Y T O S I D E R L L A N G E FP U N I S H M E N.T. . . . 4 CON FU R O . . DWIROADBLOCKS A. AREILLEGAL B. AVOIDING ROADBLOCK PROVIDE CAN BASIS FORSTOP TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CHART A. CAN'T DENY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FORFAILURE PAY TO SURCHARGE B. RULES BASISFORVEHICLE STOP- LEGALSTANDARD A. FAILING TIMELY TO SIGNAL INTENT TURN TO B. TICKETS THATPROVIDED BASIS FORSTOPINADMISSIBLE. .. C. INFORMATION FROM CITIZEN/POLICE RADIO/ANONYMOUS CALL
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

ilt.

5 5 5 6 7 7 7 10 10 10 10 10

tv.
V.

vt.

D. E.

SUFFICIENT BASISFOR STOP IDENTIFIEDCITIZEN--CREDIBLEANDRELIABLE . .......12 D E T A I L S O F P O L I C E B R O A D C A S T A R E A D M I S S I B L E . . . .. . . . . . . 1 2 ANONYMOUS FROMEMSTECHNICIAN TIP . 13 INFORMATION COMMUNICATED 911 OPERATOR TO BUT NOT TO OFFICER WILL SUPPORT 13 STOP 6. ANONYMOUSTIPFROMHITCHHIKER.... .......14 7. ANONYMOUS FROMTRUCKDRIVER TIP 14 ANONYMOUS - INSUFFICIENT 8. TIP DETAILS . . 14 BAD DRIVING/CONDUCT NEEDNOT = CRIMINAL 14 OFFENSE "CoMMUNTTY CARE-TAKTNG FUNCT|ON',(CCF) 16 1. APPLIES 16 2. DOESN'T APPLY 18

F.

G. H. t. J.

K.

L.

M.

o.
P.

N.

o.
R.

S. T.

U. V.

OFFICER'S ARREST AUTHORITY WHEN OUTSIDE JURISDICTION .. 19 1. FORA TRAFFIC OFFENSE 19 = NO . (a) STOPS MADE BEFORE 19 9-01-05 = (b) STOPS MADE AFTER 9-01-05 YES 19 2. CANSTOP ANDARREST FOR'BREACH PEACE'' . . . . OF . 19 3. TO MAKE ARREST FORDWI 20 4. FAILURE NOTIFY TO OFFICERS WITHIN JURISDICTION DOES NOT VIOLATE EXCLUSIONARY RULE 20 5. CITY VS.COUNTY-WIDE JURISDICTION 20 (a) CoUNTY-WIDE .. 20 (b) oFFtcERWTTHtNJUR|SDtCTtON'SPARTtCIpATtON 20 (c) HoTPURSUIT.... 21 PRETEXT STOPS NOLONGER BASIS FORSUPPRESSION 21 OPERATING VEHICLE UNSAFE IN CONDITION 21 FAILING DIMLIGHT TO 22 RAPID ACCELERATION/SPINNING TIRES 22 1. YES. 22 2. NO.. 22 WEAVING WITHIN LANE . 22 1. Y E S. 22 2. NO.. 24 DEFECTIVE LAMP BRAKE TAIL OR LAMP BASIS AS FORSTOP 25 1. NO.. 25 2. YES. 25 MUSTRADAR EVIDENCE MEET KELLY TEST? 26 1. Y E S. 26 2. JUDICIAL NOTICE RADAR OF 26 3. RADAR MEETS PRONG KELLYTEST 1ST OF 26 4. LIDAR RADAR SOLEBASIS AS FORSTOP WITHOUT. PROOF OF RELIABILITYISINSUFFICIENT ......27 5. RADAR NOTNEEDED JUSTIFY TO STOPFORSPEEDING . . . . . . 27 CITIZEN'S ARREST FOR"BREACH THEPEACE'AS OF BASIS FORSTOP. . . . . . 27 TURNING/EXITINGWITHOUTASIGNAL ....28 1. Y E S. ... 28 2. NO.. ... 28 "FOLLOWING CLOSELY'TOO SUFFICIENT DETAIL? . . . . 29 1. NO.. ... 29 2. Y E S. ... 29 DRIVING UNDER THEPOSTED LIMIT SPEED . . . . . 29 1. INSUFFICIENT THESE ON FACTS . . . 29 2. SUFFICIENTONTHESEFACTS .....30 APPROACHINGAVEHICLETHATISALREADYSTOPPED ....... 30 1. E N C O U N T E. . . .R .... 30 2, NOTAN NCOUNTER..., E ... 31 3. APPROACHING DEFENDANT OUTSIDE ANDAWAY OF FROMVEHICLE=ENCOUNTER ....32 PLATEOBSCURING STATE SLOGAN ANDIMAGES PROVIDES BASISFORSTOP .....32 DRIVERSLICENSECHECKPOINT ...32 1. UNREASONABLE. .... 32 2. R E A S O N A B L.E . ..... 32 VEHICLESTOPPEDATLIGHT ......33 PASSINGONIMPROVEDSHOULDER.. .... 33

l_ l-

W. X. Y.

z.
vil. vilt.

OBJECTIVE FACTS CANTRUMP OFFICER'S SUBJECTIVE BELIEF ANDSUPPORT STOP REWING ENGINE ANDLURCHING FORWARD SUFFICIENT BASIS FORSTOP STOPISVALID NOTRAFFIC IF BUT BELIEF OFFENSE OFFICER'S THERE WASA TRAFFIC IS OFFENSE REASONABLE DRIVING LEFT CENTER UNDIVIDED WITHOUT OF ON ROAD CENTER STRIPE

34 35 35 35 . . . 36

PORTABLE ALCOHOL SENSOR DEVICES

WARRANTLESSARRESTDWISUSPECT.OFFENSENOTVIEWED ...... 36 A. BASEDONPUBLICINTOXICATIONTHEORY ......36 B. BASED ''BREACH PEACE" . . 36 ON OF THEORY C. BASEDON"SUSPICIOUSPLACE"THEORY .......37 1. FRONTYARD .. 37 2. PARKINGLOT. ......37 3. HOSPTTAL ..... 37 4. THEDEFENDANT'S . . . 37 HOME ....38 5. ACCIDENTSCENE D. NEED NOTACTUALLY .. WITHPUBLIC INTOXICATION . . . . 38 CHARGE SUSPECT E. IMPLIED . . . . 38 CONSENT LAWSTILL APPLIES vrDEo ... 38 A. PARTSOFPREDICATECANBEINFERRED.. ..... 38 B. NEWPREDICATE . . . 39 REPLACES EDWARDS C. OPERATORQUALIFICATIONS ......39 D. S U P P R E S S I BT E M S ...... 39 I LE 1. INVOCATION RIGHT COUNSEL. . . . 39 OF TO . 2. INVOCATION RIGHT TERMINATE . . . . 39 TO INTERVIEW OF 3. EXTRANEOUS . . . . 40 TO OFFENSESIF OBJECTED E. NOTSUPPRESSIBLE ...........40 1. .....40 AUDTOOFFST',S 2. F S TR E F U S A .L ..... 40 . 3. VIDEOPORTIONAFTERAUDIOSUPPRESSED... ....... 41 4. . INVOCATION RIGHTTO DURING REFUSAL . . . . . . . . 41 BT OF COUNSEL 5. VIDEO . PORTION ADMISSIBLE IF DID EVEN AUDIO NOTRECORD . . . . . 41 6. FIELDSOBRIETYTESTSARENON-TESTIMONIAL.... ... 41 7. VERBAL FST'S /ALPHABET COUNTING NOT ARE & TESTTMONTAL ...... 41 .. -. 8. . . . . . 42 RIGHT COUNSELMUSTBECLEARLY TO INVOKED 9. RIGHT REMAIN TO INVOKED. . . . . 42 . MAYNOTBESELECTIVELY SILENT F. ABSENCEOFVIDEOTAPE... .......42 1. NOTGROUNDSFORACQUITTAL.... .....42 2. . . 42 UNLESS DESTRUCTION TAPEIN BADFAITH OF 3. NOJURYINSTRUCTIONFORFAILURETOTAPE ........ 43 G. SURREPTITIOUSAUDIORECORDINGS ....43 1. P R E - A R R E S.T .....43 . . 2. P O S T - A R R E. T S ...... 43 H. DEFENSE . . 43 RIGHT VIEWTAPEBEFORE TO TRIAL I. TAPEMADEINFOREIGNLANGUAGE ......44 J. PROVIDING DEFENDANT . . . . . . 44 WITHCOPY DWIVIDEOTAPE OF 1. DEFENDANT . . . 44 NEED ONLY GIVEN'ACCESS" BE

tx.

l_ l_ l_

K. L. M. N.

o.
P.

o.
R.

ACCESS THETAPEIS NOTREQUIRED TO UNLESS THERE -CUSTODIAL IS INTERROGATION' = NOSOUND NOPROBLEM . MOBILE VIDEO TAPE ADMISSIBLE CAMERA STATE MAYSUBPOENA/OFFER DEFENDANT'S COPY LOSING VIDEOTAPE BETWEEN TRIAL ANDAPPEAL DOES NOTREQUIRE NEWTRIAL PROBLEM OTHER VISIBLE DWITAPE OF STOPS BEING ON VIDEO PART TAPEMAYBEADMISSIBLE WITHOUT OPERATOR'S OF TESTIMONY INABILIW IDALLBACKGROUND TO VOICES NOTA PROBLEM NARRATIVE PERFORMANCE FST'S OFFICER'S ON OF 1. . . C U M U L A T I V.E. 2. INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY

2.

44 44 44 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46

x.

IN.COURT DEMONSTRATIONS/EXHIBITS A. FIELDSOBRIEryTESTS B. SMELLTEST. C. SMELL&TASTETEST. D. CHART SYMPTOMS INTOXICATION INADMISSIBLE OF OF E. CHART SYMPTOMS INTOXI OF OF CATION-DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE F. D E M O N S T R A TO FN E F E N D A N T ' S S P E.E.C H IO D . . G. ERROR ALLOW TO TO BOTTLE VODKA BEADMITTED OF ASDEMONSTRATIVEEVIDENCE
(OPINION ONE WITNESSSUFFICIENT TESTIMONN IMPEACHING POLICEOFFICER FINANCIAL MOTIVE B. QUOTAS C. EMPLOYMENT AND DISCIPLINARY HISTORY IMPEACHING EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND BOND FORFEITURE A. PROPER B. IMPROPER C. EVIDENCE BONDFORFEITURE OF ADMISSIBLE STATEMENTSBY DEFENDANT A. PRE-ARREST STATEMENTS. .

... 47 .....47 ........47 ......47 . . . . . . 47 ..... 48 ...... 48 ....48

48 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 54 54 54 55 55 55 55 56

xt.
xil.

XIII.

XIV.

c.
D.

B.

E. F.

1. A D M I S S I B . .E . L "CUSTODIAL 2. INADMISSIBLE, INTERROGATION'' . . ... - RECITATION "MIRANDAWARNINGS'' . MUSTBEACCURATE . ACCIDENT REPORTS HASNO EFFECT ADMISSIBILITY ON STATUTE OF DRIVER'S ORAL STATEMENTS DOESHANDCUFFING DEFENDANT PLACE HIMIN"CUSTODY'FOR MIRANDAPURPOSES?.... 1. N O. . 2. YES. STATEMENTS DEFENDANT'S BY HUSBANDNOTHEARSAY PRE-ARREST TESTIMONY/COMMENTS DO NOT SILENCE VIOLATE AMENDMENT sTH

AV

XV.

FIELDSOBRIETY TESTS A. HORIZONTAL . GAZENYSTAGMUS. . . 1, ISADMISSIBLE 2. DOES NOTHAVE BEAN OPHTHALMOLOGIST TO OFFICER TOTESTIFY.... . 3. DOES THEOFFICER NEED BECERTIFIED?. . . TO (a) MUSTBE MET NO, BUTRULE 702REQUIREMENTS (b) FROM COURSE CERTTFTCATTON A TRA|NING WILL UFFICE S (c) .. MUSTHAVE CERTIFICATION OFFICER SOME (d) LAPSED W|LL CERTTFTCATTONNOTDISQUALIFY 4. NOTICE IMPROPER TRIAL FOR TO COURT TAKEJUDICIAL RELIABILITY OFTEST'S ALCOHOL 5. WITNESS TESTTO BLOOD CAN'T CORRELATE CONCENTRATION .. ... NYSTAGMUS . 6. VERTICAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS/RESTING .. 7. IMPACT FAILING PERFORM TO FST'S PERNHTSA GUIDELINES . . OF AS 8. DVDSHOWING ADMITTED HGNPROPERLY DEMONSTRATIVE AID = B. . ONELEGSTAND LAYWITNESS TESTIMONY. . . c. WALKANDTURN= LAYWITNESS .. TESTIMONY . . RE: D. MAY FINDINGS THE OFFICER TESTIFYABOUT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES RELIABILITY FST'S OF FST'S E. MAYCOERCE OFFICERS SUSPECT INTOPERFORMING = F. REFUSAL PERFORM ANDEVIDENCE TO FST,S PCTO ARREST O FG U I L T G. FAILURE EXPLAIN TO NATIVE FST'S DEFENDANT'S IN = TONGUE NOVIOLATION
SPECIFIC ELEMENTS

56 56 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 58 58 5B 5B 60 60 60 61 61 61 62
63 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65

XVI.

A.

c.
D. E.

B.

PUBLIC ROAD PLACE 1. PARKING LOTS . 2. MILITARY BASES 3. PARK A PUBLIC AS PLACE 4. DRIVEWAY 5. MARINA 6. GATED COMMUNITY. . .. PROOF "STATE OF PROOF OF'MOTOR VEHICLE' .NORMAL USEOF MENTAL PHYSICAL OR FACULTIES" .. ADMISSIBILITY ILLEGAL INTOXICATION OF DRUGS PROVE TO

. . 65 XVII. BREATH TEST A. ....65 IMPLIEDCONSENTLAW. . . . 66 B. BREATH TESTPREDICATE ......66 C. INSTRUMENTCERTIFICATION ..... 66 1. . N E W I N S T R U M E N T N E E D N O T B E R E - C E .R T I F I E D . . . 66 2. ADMISSIBLE CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE AND RECORDS D. . . . 67 LIMITED RIGHT BLOOD TO TEST. . . 67 1, TEST FAILURE ADVISE RIGHT BLOOD TO TO OF . . . 67 TEST 2. NO RIGHT BLOOD TO TESTIN LIEUOF BREATH . . . . . 67 3. OFFICER'S CHOICE WHETHER BREATH BLOOD OR .......67 E. MIRANDAWARNINGS . . . 67 1. NEED FORBREATH SAMPLE NOTGIVEPRIOR REQUEST TO

F. G.

H. t.

J. K.

INVOCATION RIGHTS REFUSAL . . . . 6B OF WILLNOTEXCLUDE NORIGHT COUNSEL TO TO WHETHER PRIOR DECIDING 68 TO GIVE SAMPLE BREATH . 68 AMPULES NEED NOTBE PRESERVED. . DIC-23 DIC-24 68 & WARNINGS 1. RELATES ONLY TO REQUIREMENT BEGIVEN WRITING THEY IN . : 68 ADMISSIBILITY REFUSALS OF 2. NOTNECESSARILY FAILURE GIVE TO WARNINGS WRITING IN 68 FATAL . PRIOR REFUSAL . 69 TO 3. WRITTEN WARNINGS NEED NOTBE PROVIDED = 4. 69 THATARREST PRECEDE READING DIC-24 FLEXIBLE OF BY 5. DIC-24 NOTICE WRITING IN REOUIREMENT SATISFIED MAKING 70 WRITTEN COPY'AVAILABLE NEED NOTBE 6. WHOREADS SAMPLE OFFICER DIC-24 REQUESTS & 70 ARRESTING OFFICER FOR 7. READING WARNINGS NOTNECESSARILY BASIS CIVILIAN 70 EXCLUSION 8. DIC-24 WORDING OR GREATERIS CORRECT .10 70 THOUGH NOTTIED DRIVING IT'S TO 71 9. DIC- 24INSPANISH (a) ERROR WRITTEN lN DIDNOTMAKE TRANSLATION 71 CONSENT INVALID (b) TAPEREADING FATLURE TRANSLATE TO AUD|O SPANTSH INTOENGLISH TRIAL AT THOUGH OF WARNING 71 ERRORWAS HARMLESS 71 10. WARNINGS COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE (a) 71 NEED BEGIVEN TO (b) 72 DON'T NEED BEG|VEN TO 72 11. DIC-23 & DIC-24 DOCUMENTS NOTHEARSAY . ARE "UNDER PORTION DIC24 NOT 12. FAILURE READ TO OF 21'' 72 PRECLUDE ADMISSION BT OF 73 13. URINE SAMPLE (a) 73 MAYBE REQUESTED (b) .73 rs ADMTSSTBLE wrrHouT EXPLATNTNG TO REFUSE R|GHT 73 NOTNECESSARY SHOW210LITERS BREATH TO OF 73 BREATH TESTNOTCOERCED . 1. EXTRA WARNING REFERRED CONSEQUENCES TO OF 73 PASSING NOTREFUSING . 2. NO EVIDENCE THATADDITIONAL WARNING ACTUALLY 75 COERCEDDEFEND..NT A.. WARNING . . . 75 . 3. NO EVIDENCE THATDEFENDANT RELIED UPON EXTRA . 75 4. DEFENDANT GAVE SAMPLE, UNDERSTATED CONSEQUENCES 5. AT MTSIT ISTHEDEFENDANT'S TO BURDEN SHOWCONSENT 75 TO GIVEBT WAS NOTVOLUNTARY. . . . . . 6. INSUFFICIENT BETWEEN EVIDENCE CAUSAL CONNECTION OF 76 OFFICER STATEMENT CONSENT AND 76 BREATH TESTFOUND BECOERCED TO BREATH 77 TESTREFUSAL EVIDENCE 77 1. AS EVIDENCE GUILT OF 2. NOVIOLATIONOFsTHAMENDMENT .....77 3. REASON FORREFUSAL ANDCONDITION INSTRUMENT OF .... 77 I R R E L E V A N.T . . . 4. R E F U S AB A S E D NI N T O X I C A T I O N T I L L A - R E F U S A . .' . . . . . . . . 7 7 L .L O ISS 2. 3.
V1

L.

M.

N. O. P. O.

R.

S. T.

U.
V. W.

X. Y.

5. INTOXICATIONMAYBEPRESUMEDFROMBTR.. .......78 = REFUSAL . . . . 78 FAILURE FOLLOW . 6. TO BREATH TESTINSTRUCTIONS LATEBREATHTEST-CANBESUFFICIENT. ......78 1. . . . . . . 78 LATE TESTNOTCONCLUSIVE IS PROBATIVE BUT 2. AFTERIHOUR&2OMINUTES .....78 3. AFTER2 OURS H ..... 78 4. ..79 AFTER2HOURS&1sMINUTES.. 5. AFTER2HOURS&3OMINUTES.. ..79 6. AFTER4HOURS&3OMINUTES.. ..79 7. AFTERT OURS H ..... 79 ...... 79 O B S E R V A T IP E R I O D ON 1. MORE THAN REQUIREMENT . . . . 79 ONEOFFICER OBSERVATION 2. . . . . . . 80 NO NEED REPEAT 2NDTEST TO ON 3. NOLONGERNECESSARYTO"OBSERVE'DEFENDANTFOR 1 5M I N U T E S 80 BREATH TESTDELAY 80 PRECLUDING BLOOD TEST OFFICER MAYREQUEST MORE 80 THANONETYPEOF TEST BREATH TESTADMISSIBLE PROOF LOSS NORMAL . . . AS . BO OF OF BREATH TESTRESULTS ADMISSIBILITY ISSUES 81 1. 81 BREATH TESTRESULT NOTHEARSAY IS 2. PARTIAL 81 TESTRESULTS INADMISSIBLE. .. 3. NEWTECHNICAL FOR SUPERVISOR LAYPREDICATE CAN ... 81 OLDTESTS K E L L Y V .T A T E ...... 81 S 1. APPLIESTOBREATHTESTS .......81 2. F I R S T T W O P R O N G S O F K E L L Y T E S T M E T B Y S T A T U. T.E. . . 8 2 . . PROPER OFFER SLIPS SHOWNO RESULT . . . . . . 82 TO BT OBTAINED TO LOSS NORMAL PERSE LAWEVIDENCE MUTUALLY . OF & NOT EXCLUSIVE. . . 82 = NOSAMPLE . . . . 83 TAKEN NO DUEPROCESS VIOLATION = FAILURE TIMELY TO RESPOND REPEATED REQUEST REFUSAL . . . . 83 BT . TO EXTRAPOLATION ..... 83 1. IS NOTNEEDED PROVE TO WASINTOXICATED DEFENDANT 83 UNDER CHEMICAL TESTDEFINITION 2. PROBATIVE VALUE BT OUTWEIGHS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT. . . . . . . 84 OF (A 3. PREJUDTCE PROBATTVE RTDTCULOUS OPIN/ON) B5 OUTWETGHS 4. EXTRAPOLATION TESTIMONY ADMISSIBLE IS UNDER KELLY, S.W.2D (TEX.CR|M.APP. . 86 824 573 1992) 5. EXTRAPOLATION ADMITTED. . . 86 EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY 6. IMPROPER ADMISSION EXTRAPOLATION EVIDENCE B6 OF (a) NOTHARMLESS 86 . (b) 87 HARMLESS 7. EVIDENCE DRUGINGESTION RELEVANT WITHOUT OF STILL EXTRAPOLATION 87 8. EXTRAPOLATION 87 EVIDENCE PROPERLY ADMITTED 9. RESULT BLOOD AFTERARREST OF DRAWN 5/12HOURS WITHOUT EXTRAPOLATION RULE 403 . . 89 ADMISSIBLE UNDER OPERATOR NEED THE NOTUNDERSTAND BEHIND SCIENCE I N S T R U M E N. ! .T 89 FAILURE NOTE TO TEMPERATURE B9 . = 1. B9 OF REFERENCE SAMPLE BT EXCLUDED = 2. OF REFERENCE 89 SAMPLE BT NOTEXCLUDED = 3. 90 OF SUSPECT REFERENCE & SAMPLE BT NOTEXCLUDED

va t_

BLOOD TEST 90 "REASONABLE A. MANDATORY .. 90 BLOOD BELIEF'STANDARD. . 1. 90 MET. 2. 91 NOTMET B. ARREST THEHOSPITAL 91 AT 1. RESTRAINT SUFFICIENT WAS 91 2. 91 LATER RELEASE NOTNEGATE DID c STATUTORY MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS DRAWING FOR BLOOD NOTAPPLY DO 92 1. WHEN EFENDANTCONSEN. S D ..T 92 2. WHENDEFENDANT NOTUNDER 92 IS ARREST 3. . 92 CONSENT NOTINVOLUNTARY COERCED. . OR 4. READING 93 DIC-24 EVIDENCE ARREST AS OF D. PROCEDURE TAKING 93 FOR BLOOD SAMPLE 1. 93 OFFICERS MAYUSEFORCE TAKEBLOOD TO 2. 93 SAMPLE FROM UNCONSCIOUS DEFENDANT 93 3. USEOFALCOHOLSWAB BLOOD DRAW BEFORE 4. 94 WHATCONSTITUTES-QUALIFIED A TECHNICIAN' "PHLEBOTOMIST" BEA "QUALIFIED (a) 94 TECHNICIAN' MAY "PHLEBOTOMTST'QUALTFTCATTONMUSTSTTLL (b) 94 BESHOWN (c) RESTRICTIONS WHOMAYDRAWBLOOD ONLY ON . . . 94 APPLY SUSPECT UNDER IF ARREST IS 5. EMSPERSONNEL NOTDRAWMANDATORY BLOOD . . . . . . 95 MAY E. HOSPITALRECORDS ..95 1. ...95 ARENOTPRIVILEGED... 2. ..96 OBTAININGRECORDSBYSUBPOENA... 3. RELEASE DEFENDANT'S RECORDS IN OF HOSPITAL HIPAA . . . 96 RESPONSE A GJ SUBPOENA TO DOES NOTVIOLATE 4. TELLING NO HIPAA VIOLATION HOSPITAL IN PERSONNEL . . . . 97 POLICE BLOOD.ALCOHOL WITHOUT CONTENT SUBPOENA F. CHAINOFCUSTODYREQUIREMENTS .....97 1. BLOOD . . . . . 97 TESTED SAME BLOOD IS AS DRAWN 2. N O TN E C E S S A R Y T HP E R S O W H OD R E W L O O D T E S T I F.Y. . . . 9 7 AT B . . N 3. . . . 97 GAPSIN CHAIN TO -WEIGHT" NOTADMISSIBILITY GO . . . 98 4. NOTNECESSARYTO THEBLOOD WHODREW SHOW 5. NOTNECESSARYTO THEBLOOD!. . . 98 WHODREW ORTESTED SHOW 6. PROVING WITHBUSINESS HOSPITAL BLOOD RESULTS RECORDSAFFIDAVIT .......98 G. SANITARYPLACEREQUIREMENT.. .......99 H. HOSPITAL . . . 99 DRAWN SERUM.BLOOD TEST = t. HOSPITAL 100 DRAWN SAMPLE NOTAN ASSAULT. . . J. 100 ACQUIESCENCE HOSPITAL TO BLOOD DRAW= CONSENT K. 101 SEARCH WARRANT FORBLOOD DWICASE IN 1. 101 IS PROPER 2. OF SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT FAILED NOTEDATEffIME STOP 101 TO (a) 101 NOTFATAL (b) 102 FATAL 3. WARRANT THEWRONG YEAR SEARCH AFFIDAVIT LISTED 102 NOTFATAL 4. WARRANT MULTIPLE SEARCH AFFIDAVIT HAVING CLERICAL 102 ERRORS NOTFATAL 5. SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT FAILED SETOUTTHEBASIS TO FORTHETRAFFIC 103 STOPNOTFATAL
vl_ l_ l_

L. M. N.

o.
P.

O.

SEARCHWARRANTAFFIDAVITWAS NOTSIGNEDBY = AFFIANT NOTFATAL. 7. SIGNATURE WARRANT IS ON NOTLEGIBLE NOTFATAL 8. SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT MULTIPLE CONTAINING = ABBREVIATIONS WERENOTEXPLAINEDNOTFATAL THAT 9. THERELIABILIry THEFST'S OF DESCRIBED THESEARCH IN = WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AREATTACKED NOTFATAL 10. FAXED WARRANT WHERE OATH WASADMINISTERED BY MAGISTRATE AFFIANT TO OVER THEPHONE. . . . (a) NOTFATAL (b) FArAL 11. THEJURISDICTION THESTATUTORY IS OF COUNTY COURT ATTACKED ANDFOUND BE LIMITED TO 12. SEARCH WARRANT FORHAV]NG AFFIDAVIT ATTACKED INSUFFICIENT FACTS SUPPORT ANDFORFAILING TO PC TO NOTE DATEffIME STOP OF (a) NOTFATAL (b) FATAL 13. FAILURE SPECIFY TO WHATPOLICE INTEND DOWITH TO = BLOOD SAMPLE NOTFATAL 14. JURISDICTION MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT AS OF POLICE REGARDS EXECUTION WARRANT COUNTY IS WIDE OF 15. SEARCH WARRANT NOTRELATING DETAILS ABOUT CREDIBILITYOFAFFIANTNOTFATAL .......;. DIC-24 NEEDNOTBE READBEFORE MANDATORY BLOOD DRAW ONLYONESAMPLE MAYBE DRAWN LAW . . . . . UNDER MANDATORY BLOOD WHEN DEFENDANT CONSENT 724.01 OF TRANSPORTATION S, 2 CODEDOES NOTAPPLY "NOTUNREASONABLE" OFFICER BLOOD DRAWPROCEDURE UNDER THE 4TH AMENDMENT AND NON-MEDICAL ENVIRONMENT UPHELD IS PROPER BRING TO OUTIN QUESTIONING DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO ASKTORETEST BLOOD SAMPLE TESTIMONYABOUT INGESTION ITSEFFECTS DRUG AND 1. I M P R O P E R L Y A D M I T. . E D T 2. PROPERLY ADMITTED
6.

103 103 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 106 106 107 107 107 107 108 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 110 110 111 111
111 111 111 112 114 115

xtx.

EXPERT TESTIMONY = = A. STATE EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY.08LOSS NORMAL PROPER OF - pRtOR B. IMPEACHMENT (JOHN TEST|MONY CASTLE) C. EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT DWIVIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED D. DEFENSE EXPERT OPENED DOORTO ALCOHOLISM . . . . ., .. DEFENDANT'S E. RESULTS DEFENSE OF EXPERT'S PROPERLY EXCLUDED EXPERIMENT DEFENSES A. ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE . . ., B. NECESSITY DEFENSE c. INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION DEFENSE/INSTRUCTION .... D. INSANITY/AUTOMATISM ... "VOLU E. NTARY ACT"INSTRUCTION 1. NO.. 2. YES.INSTRUCTION INVOLUNTARYACT ON SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN

xx.

115 115

IX

xxt.

JURYCHARGE A. OBSERVATION PERIOD 1. NOCHARGE REQUIRED 2. CHARGE REQUIRED B. ALTERNATIVECAUSATION=NOCHARGE.... 1. INGENERAL.... 2. FATIGUE c. CHARGE WORKING ON CONDITION INSTRUMENT. .. OF 1. NOTENTITLED SUCH CHARGE TO A 2. ENTITLED CHARGE TO DPSREGULATIONS TO AS D. NOCHARGE BLOOD URINE BREATH ON OR IN TESTCASE E, SYNERGISTIC CHARGES 1. PROPER 2. NOTFOR"FATIGUE' 3. N O TF O R " T H E O R Y O FT O X I C A T IN O T A L L E G E D " IN ON ....... F. GENERAL VERDICT FORM G. SEPARATE VERDICT FORMS? H. DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION INSTRUCTION . t. MOTOR VEHICLE A DEADLY AS WEAPON A DWICASE IN 1. IS PROPER 2. M A Y O R M A Y N O T B E P R O P.E.R ? . . 3. IS NOTPROPER 4. NOTICE MUSTBEADEOUATE TIMELY AND J. NODEFINITION OF'NORMAL USE'SHOULD GIVEN BE K. NOSUCH THING "ATTEMPTED . AS DWI" L. NOCHARGE INVOLUNTARY ON INTOXICATION AUTOMATISM AND DEFENSE THISDWI/PRESCRIPTION CASE IN DRUG M. NO MEDICAL EXCUSE INSTRUCTION .. N. NOJURYINSTRUCTION FAILURE PRESERVE ON TO EVIDENCE. . . . o. DEFINITION "OPERATING' CHARGE OF IN . 1. NOTERRORTO DENY REQUEST 2. ERROR GIVE TO JURY DEFINITION -OPERATING" . OF P. NOJURYINSTRUCTION BTRCONSIDERED EVIDENCE. . ON AS . o. ERROR CHARGE CONCURRENT TO ON IN CAUSATION DWICASE R. NOTENTITLED A CCP38.23 TO INSTRUCTION S. PERSE DEFINITION OPTION BE SHOULD SUBMITTEDLIMITING INSTRUCTION IMPROPER .. T. PROPER SUBMIT TO INSTRUCTION THATINTOXICATION CAUSED DRUGS BY U. DEFINITION JURY IN INSTRUCTION SHOULD LIMITED EVIDENCE BE TO PRESENTED TRIAL AT V. WHEN CHARGE SPECIFICALLY SUBJECTIVE USES DEFINITION OF INTOXICATION NOTPERSE DEFINITION. PERSE DEFINITION AND THE SHOULD NOTBE INJURY INSTRUCTION ..

116 116 116 116 116 116 117 117 117 117 117 118 118 118 118 119 119 120 120 120 121 121 122 122 122 122 123 123 123 123 124 124 124 124 125 126 126 127

XXII. JURYARGUMENT ....127 A. P E R M I S S I B .L E .. 127 1. DEFENDANT FAILED BLOW TO BECAUSE KNEW WOULD HE HE FAIL. 127 2. DEFENDANT'S FAILURE DO FST'S VIDEO TO 127 ON 3. DEFENDANT'S (i.e. REFUSAL DOANYTHING FST'S, TO BT) . . 127 4, DEFENDANT'S TRYING LOOK TO 128 GOOD TAPE ON 5. JURYDOES NOTHAVE BE UNANIMOUS THEORY TO ON OF INTOX|CAT|ON. . 128

6. B.

ABOUT TESTIMONY REGARDING ARGUMENT AND DEFENDANT'S WASPROPER FAILURE CALLITSEXPERT TO IMPERMISSIBLE . ......

128 128 129 129 129 129 129 129 130 130 130 130 130 130 131 131 131 131 131 132 132 132 132 132 132
133 133 133 133 134 134

XXIII. PROBATION IGIBLE EL

XXIV.PRIORS/ENHANCEMENTS .... A. PROVING DEFENDANT PERSON IN IS NAMED JUDGMENT 1. I.D.MUST BASED MORE NAME" BE ON THAN"SAME 2. BOOK-IN AND CARDMUST TIEDTO JUDGMENT SENTENCE BE . 3. PROOF ID POSSIBLE PRINTS PHOTOS . . . OR OF WITHOUT 4. PRINTOUT PROOF PRIOR CONVICTION COMPUTER AS OF B. PRIORS FORWHICH DEFERRED ADJUDICATION GIVEN C. USEOF DPSRECORDS PROVE TO PRIORS 1. FORPURPOSE TYING TO OF DEFENDANT J & S . . 2. DPSRECORDS ALONE WITHOUT & S - NOTENOUGH J 3. DPSRECORDS EXCLUDABLE NOT UNDERCOLE D. FAXED COPY JUDGMENTSENTENCE OF & ADMISSIBLE E. ENHANCEMENT FELONY DWIWITH NON-DWI PRIORS OF F. ERROR ENHANCEMENT IN PARAGRAPH FATAL NOT 1. WRONG DATE ALLEGED 2. ....... WRONG ASE UMBERALLEGED C N 3. WRONG ALLEGED STATE 4. WRONG . CHARGING INSTRUMENT ALLEGED. . . G. APPEAL REVOKED DOESN'T OF DWI BARITSUSEFORENHANCEMENT H. FELONY . DWI 1. ORDEROF ENHANCEMENTS 2. IN UNDERLYING PR]ORS ADMISSIBLE DWI ARE . GUILT/INNOCENCE STAGE 3. DEFENDANT'S TO DOES AGREEMENT STIPULATE PRIORS TO PRECLUDE THEIR BEING ADMITTED 4. STIPULATION INTOEVIDENCE SHOULD ADMITTED BE 5. TWOPRIORS ACT THAT ARISE CRIMINAL OUTOFA SINGLE MAYBE USED ENHANCE A FELONY TO TO 6. JUDGE HASNOAUTHORITY FINDPRIOR TO CONVICTION TRUE WHENISSUE TO NOTSUBMITTED JURY 7. STIPULATING PRIORS TO 1O WAIVES YEAROBJECTION B. JURYINSTRUCTION MUST THE ADDRESS STIPULATION L DEFENDANT WHOSTIPULATES PRIORS CONDITION TO ON THEYNOTBE MENTIONED ABILITY COMPLAIN TO WAIVES THEY WERENOTPROVED. . 10. PROPER USEFEDERAL CONVICTIONS FOR TO DWI ENHANCEMENT. .
11. DATESOF PRIORDWI'SARE NOT ELEMENTS FELONYDWI . . . . . . OF LIMITS ON USE OF DWI PRIORSFOR ENHANCEMENT 1. PRIORFELONYDWI MAY BE USEDTO ENHANCEFELONY UNDERPENALCODESECTION 12.42 2. SAMEPRIORCANNOTBE USEDTWICE 3. WHAT IS NOT'USINGA PRIORTWICE" OPENCONTAINER.... 1. SUFFICIENT PROOFOF . . 2. EFFECTOF IMPROPER READING OPEN CONTAINER OF ENHANCEMENT GUILT/INNOCENCE IN PHASE

135 135 135 135 135 136 136 136 136 136

J.

x1

K. L.

M. N.

o.
P.

o.
R. S. T.

U. V. W. X. Y.

z.

AS PROPER ALLEGE TO DATE PROBATION GRANTED OPPOSED TO DATEPROBATION REVOKED = DEFECT WORDING JUDGMENT/PROBATION ORDER BADPRIOR . . . . lN OF 1. Y E S. 2. N O. . 3. NOTA PROBLEM PRIORS FORUNDERLYING . . 4. P E U N S I G N E D J U D G M E N TB EU S E D T O R O V E N H A N C E M E N.T CAN AFFECT ERRONEOUS DISMISSAL PROBATION THECOURT BY WON'T OF FINALITYOFTHECONVICTION.... MANDATORY TIMEAS CONDITION PROBATION-REPEAT JAIL OF O F F E N D E R.S. . . IFYOUALLEGE MUST YOU MORE PRIOR DWI'S THANYOUNEED, PROVE THEM ALL? . 1. Y E S. 2. NO.. PROOF THATPRIOR DATE DWIISWITHIN YEARS OFFENSE 1O OF 1. 10 ONLY ONEOFTHETWOPRIORS MUST WITHIN YEARS BE (FOR DWrOFFENSES PRTOR 9-1-01) TO 2. PROOF 10YEARS OF NOTNECESSARY . 3. THE10YEARRULE TO FOROFFENSES FROM 9-01-01 8-31.05 4. THE1OYEARRULE'S NOTVIOLATE POST EX DEMISE DOES . FACTOLAW. JUDGE EARLY MAYNOTTERMINATE SETASIDE DWIPROBATION OR INTRODUCEDJUDGMENTANDSENTENCE PROPER PRESUMED 1. NOWAIVER RIGHT JURY OF TO TRIAL 2. INTHEABSENCE JUVENILE TRANSFER ORDER OF PROBATED CONVICTIONS TO DWI MAYBE USED UNDER 67011 ENHANCE NEWDWIOFFENSES MISDEMEANOR PRIORS AREVALID WHENDEFENDANT WAIVES WITHOUT ATTORNEY JURY AN . DWISENTENCE MUST INCLUDE TIME JAIL ILLEGAL ASKED FORIT SENTENCE ENFORCEABLEDEFENDANT IF ORAGREED IT TO EXPUNCTION NOTALWAYS WILL FACTS OF RENDER UNDERLYING CASEINADMISSIBLEPUNISHMENT IN PHASE FELONY CANBETHEUNDERLYING DWI FELONY A'FELONY IN MURDER'CHARGE DWIW/CHILD BETHEUNDERLYING CAN FELONY A FELONY IN MURDERCHARGE INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER TO PRIOR MAYNOTBE USED ENHANCEADWITOAFELONY..

137 137 137 137 137 138 138 138 139 139 139 139 139 139 140 140 141 141 141 141 141 142 142 142 143 143 144 144

XXV. COLLATERALESTOPPEL/DOUBLEJEOPARDY .. 145 A. JUSTICE FINDINGS COURT B. PROBATION 145 REVOCATION HEARINGS . . C. ALRHEARINGS-NO 145 DOUBLE JEOPARDY 1. .145 ALRSUSPENSIONSBASEDONBREATHTESTS 2. ALRSUSPENSIONS 145 BASED BREATH TESTREFUSALS ON D. ALRHEARINGS: COLLATERAL 146 NO . ESTOPPEL. . . E. N OD O U B L E J E O P A R D Y B A R T O S E C U T I N G F E N D A N T R B O T H. . . 1 4 7 FO . PRO DE 1. 147 D W I &D W L S 2. DWI&FSRA 147 3. FELONY 148 DWI& INTOXICATION ASSAULT. . 4. DWI& CHILD 148 ENDANGERMENT
xl_ l_

F. G. H. I. J. K.

OCCUPATIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE/ALR SUSPENSIONS "DUI" NOCONFLICT BETWEEN AND'DWI" STATUTE NO CONVICTION BOTHINTOXICATION FOR AND ASSAULT AGGRAVATEDASSAULTSBI EFFECT LOSING OF ONEBT THEORY FIRST AT TRIAL ON SUBSEQUENT TRIAL COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BARSINTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL DIFFERENT ON INTOXICANT NO DOUBLE DWI JEOPARDY WHERE FAULTY UNDERLYING PRIOR ALLEGATION DENIES COURT JURISDICTION

148 149 149 149 150 150 . . . . . 150 150 151 159 160 160 161 163 163 163

XXVI. PUTTING DEFENDANT BEHIND THEWHEEL = A. DEFENDANT STATEMENT THATHEWASDRIVER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED B. SUFFICIENT . CORROBORATION OF'DRIVING/OPERATING' C. INSUFFICIENT CORROBORATION "DRIVING/OPERATING" OF D. EVIDENCE INTOXICATION TIMEDEFENDANT OF AT WASDRIVING 1. I N S U F F I C I E.N T . 2. S U F F I C T E N.T. . .

-N x x v l l . G o N D r T r o N s o F p R o B A T t oL t M t T A T t o N s ...... A. STAYOUTOF BARS-CHANGE JOB= OK . B. DENIAL PROBATION TO LANGUAGE . OF DUE BARRIER-PROPER.. . xxvlll. No J.N.o.v.tN cRtMtNAL cAsEs XXIX. COURT APPEALS OF NOTRE.WEIGH SHOULD EVIDENCE XXX. MISDEMEANOR APPEAL BONDCONDITIONS XXXI. INTERLOCK DEVICES A. ASAPRE-TRIALBONDCONDITION B. AS A CONDITION PROBATION OF C. AS PROOF PROBATION VIOLATION OF XXXII. JUDGE MAYCHANGE JURYSENTENCE JAILTIMETO PROBATION OF TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

. . . 163 . . . . . 163 . . . . 163 . 1M .......164 165 165 . . . . . . 165 166

xl_ l_ l_

I.

INFORMATION/CHARGING INSTRUMENT A. MENTAL PHYSICAL OR FACULTIES

Herrera State, S.W.3d v. 11 412 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2000,pet.ref'd). [1't McGinty State 740S.W.2d475 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1987 pet.ref'd). v. , , [1st pet.refld). Simsv. State, 735S.W.2d 913(Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, Use of language"/ossof normal useof mentaland physicalfaculties" charginginstrument in is proper& fhe Sfafeneednot elect because "and"becomes in thejury instructions. "or" fhe B. PLACE'' SPECIFIC IS ENOUGH "PUBLIC

Ravv. State, pet.ref'd). 749S.W.2d 939(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, Kinqv. State,732 pet.refd). S.W.2d 796(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1987, place"is a sufficiently Allegation "public of specific description. C. STATE DOES NOTHAVE SPECIFY TO WHICH DEFINITION INTOXICATION OF IT IS RELYING IN THEINFORMATION ON

Statev. Barbernell, S.W.3d 257 248(Tex.Crim.App.2008). The Statedoesnot have to allegein the charging instrument whichdeflnitionof "intoxicated" the going to be prosecutedunder. The definitions "intoxicated" not create two defendantis do of mannersand means of committingDWI. The conductproscribedis the act of driving while intoxicated. The two definitionsonly provide alternativemeans by which the State can prove intoxication thereforeare not requiredto be allegedin the charginginstrument. The Court and foundthat itsholding State Carter.870 W.2d197(Tex.Crim.App.1991) flawed, in v. was andit S. was explicitlyoverruledby this opinion. This will greatly simplifycharginglanguageand may do awaywith the need for synergistic yotJ'vesaid charges.Bottomline, whenyou say "intoxicated," it all. D. NO MENTAL STATENECESSARY DWICHARGE IN 1. PRE549.04

Ex ParteRoss, 522S.W.2d 214(Tex.Crim.App. 1975). Hardie State, v. 588S.W.2d 936(Tex.Crim.App. 1979). 2. POST549.04

Lewis State, v. 951S.W.2d 235(Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, pet.). no Reed State,916 v. (Tex.App.-Amarillo, pet.ref'd). S.W.2d 591 1996,

Chunn State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1996, 923S.W.2d728 pet.ref'd). [1st Sanders State, v. 936S.W.2d pet.ref'd). 436(Tex.App.-Austin 1996, Statev. Sanchez, S.W.2d371(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1996, ref'd). 925 pet. [1st Burke State, v. 930S.W.2d230(Tex.App.-Houston pet.ref'd). Dist.] 1996, [14th Aouirre State, v. 928S.W.2d 759(Tex.App.-Houston no [14thDist.]1996, pet.). E. UNOBJECTED ERROR CHARGING TO IN INSTRUMENT

McCov State,877 v. S.W.2d844(Tex.App.-Eastland 1994, pet.). no Wherecharging instrument mistakenly allegedlossof "facilities" no objection and wasmadeprior to trial, thejudge couldproperlyreplacethe term with "faculties"in thejury instruction. F. READING DWIENHANCEMENT WRONG AT TIME

Pratte State,2008 v. (Tex.App.-Austin WL5423193 2008, pet.). no Thecourtallowedthe Stateto read the enhancement paragraph frontof thejury that alteged in a prior DWI convictionover the defendant'sobjection. Article 36.01 of the Code of Criminat Procedure saysthat whenpriorconvictions alleged are forpurposes enhancement and are of only notiurisdictional, portionof the indictment information that or recitingsuchconvictions shatt be not read untilthe hearingon punishment.In thisparticularcase,the defendant stipulated theprior to listed theenhancement in aftertheinformation readandbeforethe State was catteditsfirstwifness so fhe Courtholdsthat the asserfederrordid not contribute the defendant's to conviction. II. VOIRDIRE A. PROPER QUESTION/STATEMENT

Kirkham State, v. 632S.W.2d 682(Tex.App.-Amarillo 1982, pet.). no Voir dire question,"Do you betievea personis best judge of whetherthey are intoxicated?" is properand is not a commenton defendant's right not to testify. Vrbav. State,151 S.W.3d 676(Tex.App.-Waco, October 27,2004,pdr ref'd.). guesfionsasked the prosecution Thefollowing by wereproperin that they werenot "commitment questions:" "Whatare somesrgnsthat somebody intoxicated?" is "Whothinksthattheprocessof being arrested you wouldbe something might sober up a tittte that bit?" "Whydo you thinksomeoneshouldbe punished?" "Whichone of these[four theories punishment] mostimportant you in tryingto determine of is to how someoneshouldbe punishedand how muchpunishment they shoutdreceive?"

B.

IMPROPER QUESTION/STATEMENT

Harkey State, v. 785S.W.2d 876(Tex.App.-Austin 1990, pet.). no Defense attorneyaskingmemberofjury panel "if they couldthinkof a reasonwhy anyonewould not take sucha (breath)test"held to be improperin its'Torm." Standefer State, S.W.3d v. 59 177(Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Thequestion, someonerefuseda breath test, would you presumehimlher guilty on their "lf refusal alone?" was held to be improperas it constitutes attemptto committhejuror. This an casea/soreaffirmsthat a juror may permissibly presumeguilt from evidence a refusalto give of a breathor blood test. Davis State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] (Notdesignated 2006WL2194708, 2006, pet.). no [14th for publication). Evenif State established breath-testing properly thetimeof the test, that devicewasfunctioning at that the fesf was properlyadministered, and that defendanfbfesf result was 0.08 or above, defendant was stillentitled challenge, thejury to disbelieve, reliability themethodology to and the of usedby the device,and State'smisstatemenfs the contraryduringvoirdire requiredreversal. fo C. CHALLENGE FORCAUSE 1. PRESUMPTION INNOCENCE OF

Harkey State, v. 785S.W.2d 876(Tex.App.-Austin 1990, pet.). no Jurorsstating, response suggestion defense "mustbe guittyof in to t by counse that defendant something he wouldn't there"did not providea basisfor challenge cause. or be for 2. ONEWITNESS CASE

Zinqer State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 932 511 1996). Leonard State, v. (Tex.App.-Fort 923S.W.2d770 no Worth1996, pet.). v. Castillo State, 913S.W.2d529(Tex.Crim.App.1995). Garrett State, v. 851S.W.2d 853(Tex.Crim.App.1993). Statement venireperson by that "testimony one vyifness of wouldnot be enoughfor him to convict even if that testimonyproved all elementsbeyond a reasonabledoubt"may make that juror challengeable causebut be very carefuland read the abovecasesbeforeyou try it. for

3.

JURORS WHOWOULDREQUIRE BREATH TESTTO CONVICT

Anderson State,341 v. S.W.3d pet.filed). 585(Tex.App.-Amaritto 2011, At trial theiudge prohibiteddefensecounsel from comparing burdenof proof requiredin a the criminalcasewiththe burdenof proofrequiredin a civit case(bothclearand convincing standard and preponderance the evidencestandard). ln its opinionuphotding ruling,the Courtof of this Appealsheldthatit couldnot saythe trialcourtactedunreasonably limitingvoirdirein thisway. by jurors indicated theirjuror questionnaires they had servedon Defense arguedthat some on that a civiliury and that wasthe basisfor hisneedto askthe question the Courtof Appeats but refused juror questionnaires to considerthat argumentbecause part of the record. werenot made McKinnon State, 2004WL 878278(Tex..App.-Dallas v. 2004,pet. ref'd)(Not designated for publication). of Question "Wouldyou requirethe Stateto bring you a blood or breath test?"is not improper "commitment question," a juror that saysthat they wouldnot be able to convictwithoutsuch and a fesf is subT'ecf a challenge cause. to for Fierro State, v. 969S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin 51 1gg8, pet.). no juror who statedhe wouldbe unableto convictin the absence a breathfesf uras Prospective of challengeable cause as he had a biasagainsta phaseof the law on whichthe Statewas for entitledto rely. He would be holding Sfafe fo a higher level of proof of intoxicationthan the law required. 4. JUROR'S ABILITY CONSIDER TO FULLRANGE PUNISHMENT OF

Glauser state,66 s.w.3d 307(Tex.App.-Houston v. 2000,pdrref'd). [1"tDist] Thiswasan lntoxication Manslaughterwhere triatcourtproperty the deniedthe defense attorney's challengefor causeonjurors who couldnot considerprobationunderthe specificfactsof the case beingtriedthat wentbeyondthe elements the offense. TheCourtcitedthe standardsetout in of Sadlerv. State.977 S.W.2d140 (Tex.Crim.App.199S) juror is not which saidthat a prospective challengeable cause because or shewitl usefactsto determine for he punishment. prospective A for iuror is not challengeable causebasedon inabilityto considerthe full rangeof punishmenf so longas he or shecanconsider fullrangeof punishment the offenseas definedby taw. The the for properquestion determinebiasagainstthe law regarding to punishment "Whetherin a proper is intoxication manslaughter caseas definedby statute,where the factsjustify it, the venire person coald fully and fairly consider the entire range of punishment, including the minimum and maximum."

III.

DWIROADBLOCKS A. ARE ILLEGAL

Holtv. State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 887 16 1994). Heldthat statewideplan settingout guidelines neededto make useof roadblock constitutional. is Untilthattime,DWI roadblocks illegal. are B. AVOIDING ROADBLOCK CANPROVIDE BASISFORSTOP

Johnson State, v. pet.ref'd). 833S.W.2d 320(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1992, Hereofficerhadreasonable suspicion stopfhe suspect, to suspicion not was and thatreasonable affectedby the presence the roadblock. of

IV.

TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS

You will often find the traffic sfop was basedon what the officer perceivedto be a moving violation. Locating the particular violation can often be a difficult process, Io assisf you I am including this list of common traffic violations along with the citation to the Transportation Code. Offense Compliancewith Traffic Control Device UnsafePassingto the left of anothervehicle: Passingin a "no passing"zone UnsafePassingto the right of anothervehicle: Drivingon lmprovedShoulder Failure Drivewithin a SingleLane to Following Closelybehindanothervehicle to Passinga SchoolBus lmproperturn at Intersection lmproperuse or of Failureto use turn signal Failure signalstop/sudden to stop lmproperstop/Failure stop at intersection to Failureto Yield Rightof Way at intersection Failure to/lmproper Yieldto Emergency Vehicle lmproperstopping/parking in an intersection) (i.e. Drivingat an unsafespeed SpeedLimits when not otherwiseposted Reckless Driving Leaving VehicleUnattended Drivingtoo slow Transporting Ghildw.o. child safetyseat Failureto wearseat belt Transporting child in bed of pick up truck lmproperbackingof vehicle Drivingwith operatorsview obstructed Racing(includesrapidacceleration "peelingout" - parkinglot Drivingthroughdriveway Failureto Drivewithin SingleLane/Unsafe lanechange Drivingw.o. lights on Absenceof LicensePlateLight Taillampnot emittingplainlyvisiblered light TintedWindows(i.e.too much) Failureto displayinspection sticker Displaying fictitiousinspection sticker Operating vehiclein dangerous a mechanical condition StrikingUnattended Vehicle StrikingFixtureor HighwayLandscaping Transportation Code TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC TRC 5544.004 S54s.053 5545.055 5545.057 5545.058 5545.060 5545.062 5545.066 5545.101 5545.104 5545.105 5545.151 5545.153 S54s.156 5545.302 5545.351 5545.352 5545.401 5545.404 5545.363 5545.412 5545.413 5545.414 5545.415 5545.417 5545.420 5545.422 5545.060 5547.302 5547322 5547.322 5547.613 5548.602 5548.603 5548.604 5550.024 S5s0.025

V.

OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CHART The following chartdepicts flow is an whena defendant eligible applyfor and receive to

occupational driver's license following conviction DWl. The flowchartis divided for between a defendants under years ageandover21 at the timetheycommit offense. 21 of the printout Theflowchartis set up to be usedin conjunction a Texas license with driver's or "certified questions packet" driver's license regarding fromAustin.Byansweringfewpreliminary a path the case,the appropriate canbe usedto determine for whenandif thedefendant apply can an occupational license. Therelevant Code sections the Transportation andCodeof Criminal of Procedure provided easyreference. are for A. CAN'TDENY TO OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FORFAILURE PAYSURCHARGE

Woodv. Texas Departmentof 2010, pet.). no PublicSafetv,33l 78 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-FortWorth The Court hotdsthatit wasimproperto deny the defendant occupational license faitureto for an pay surcharges. Failureto pay surcharges nof listedas a basis for such denialand Court is assumesthat if the legislature intendedthat driverssuspended failureto pay surcharges had for be ineligible occupationallicenseg wouldhave said so. for it B. RULES.

Sec.521 .251(a) lf a person's license beensuspended for has to under 524(Administrative Ch Suspension failure passtestfor intoxication) Ch 724(Suspension Refusal givespecimen), or for to
+

No priorsuspension alcohol drugrelated from or in date enforcement thefiveyearspreceding of arrest* = M?yget an Occupational License immediately. Sec.521.251(b) preceding lf person's hasbeensuspended alcohol drugrelated DL for five contact during years or dateof person's dateof arrest + Maynotget Occupational License dateof suspension. before 91"t aftereffective the day

Sec.521 .252(c) (DWl), lf the person's has beensuspended a result a conviction 49.04 DL as of underSection (lntoxAslt) 49.08 (lntox preceding dateof theperson's 49.07 arrest, or Mansl) five the during years theymaynotgetan Occupational dateof suspension. License before 181't aftereffective the day S e c . 5 2 1 . 25 1 (d ) Notwithstanding otherprovision thissection, DL hasbeensuspended any in uponconviction of if a subsequent conviction under49.04, 49.07 49.08, within yearsof thedateon five or committed preceding which mostrecent the License for offense committed, notgetan Occupational was may oneyearfromthe dateof the suspension.

*A DLsuspension, disqualification, or prohibition order under laws thisState another the of or State resulting froma conviction DWl, BWl,a refusal givea specimen for DWI or BWl,or a to under specimen obtained showing or abovein a DWIor BWIcase. .08

Eligibility for Occupational Drivers Licenses Over 21

Looking at the )s Driving Record, is this the )s FIRST contact with ALR/DWI activity?

YES
) can get an occupational license without waiting, following the effective date of suspension. 521.251(a). The suspension time from the current ALR period can be applied to the current DWI post-conviction

NO
From the arrest date on the current case, go back 5years. Does ) have any alcohol / drug-related contacts OR any final

NO YES

) can get an occupational license without waiting, following the effective date of suspension. 521.251(a). BUT, if ) has a prior conviction for DWI at any time in their history, then the suspension time from the current ALR suspension cannot be applied to the current

If the jury did not recommend to suspend the drivers license as part of the final conviction, you have to treat the conviction as an alcohol / drug related contact for occupational

Not Suspended
Key Terms to Know Alcohol or Drug Related Contact DWI conviction from any state a Breath/Blood refusal being over the legal alcohol concentration. 524.001. Effective Date of Suspension can be anywhere between date of conviction until 30 days thereafter. 521.344(a)(1) drivers license suspension

Suspended
Final DWI Conviction where DL Suspended The occupational is allowed on the 181st day following the effective date of suspension. 521.251(c). The suspension time from the current ALR suspension cannot be applied to the current DWI post-conviction suspension. 521.344(c)(1). BUT, if the current suspension is for a second conviction for DWI, Intox. Assault, or Intox. Manslaughter, then the effective date for the occupational is 1 year from date of suspension. 521.251(d).

Prior ALR Suspension &/ DWI Final Conviction where DL not Suspended The occupational is allowed on the 91st day following the effective date of suspension. 521.251(b). If the ) does not have a DWI at any time in their history, then the current ALR period can be applied to the current DWI postconviction suspension. 521.344(c). If the ) has a prior DWI conviction, then the current ALR suspension cannot be applied to the current postconviction suspension. 521.344(c)(1).

Eligibility for Occupational License Under 21

Defendant cannot get an occupational license for the first 30 days of a suspension for failure of a breath test. Section 524.022(d)(1). If they fail a breath test and theyve had one prior conviction of an offense under Section 106.041 ABC code or an offense under Section 49.04, 49.07 or 49.08, Penal Code, they cannot get an occupational for the first 90 days of the suspension. Section 524.022(d)(2). If they fail a breath test and they've had two or more prior convictions for offenses listed above, the maximum suspension is 180 days and they cannot get an occupational for the entire suspension period. Section 524.022(d)(3).

VI.

BASISFORVEHICLE STOP. LEGALSTANDARD

v. Stone State , 685 S,W.2d 791 (Tex.App.-FortWorth 1985), aff'd 703 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). Needonly be reasonablesuspicion justify stop. (Definition that standardincludedin this to of opinion). A. FAILING TIMELY TO SIGNAL INTENT TURN TO

(Tex.App.-Austin Statev. Kidd 2010WL 5463893 no 2010, pet.). , TexasTransportation Code statedthat a drivermust continuously signal hisintentto turn for not /essfhan 100feet beforea turn. Thedriveradmittedthat he failedto do so,trialcourtconcluded that strictenforcement the 1)}-foot requirement of was "a violation one'sright to be free from of unreasonab,le seizures"under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. Court of Appeals reversed upholdingthe stop on the basr'sthat the code was clear and unambiguous ifs mandatory rn requirement a driverintending turnwasrequired "signal that to continuously not |essthanthe for to last100feet." Courtdidnot findthatenforcement the codeled to absurdresults, findingthat the of codeprovideda reliablebright-linerule for both driversand police officers. B. TICKETS THATPROVIDED BASISFORSTOPINADMISSIBLE

Nevarez State, v. 671S.W.2d (Tex.App.-ElPaso1984, pet.). 90 no Errorto allowSfafefo elicittestimony in withDWI stop. that trafficticketswere issued connection C. INFORMATION FROMCITIZEN/POLICE RADIO/ANONYMOUS CALL 1. SUFFICIENT BASIS FORSTOP

LeCourias State, v. 341S.W.3d 483(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2011). [14 Arrestingofficerhad reasonablesuspicionof criminalactivityto conductan investigative detention of defendant DWl, evenif officerdid not wifnessdefendant for operating motor vehicleat any a point before the arrest. In this case a wifnesshad observeddefendant'svehiclemaneuver erraticallyon a publicroadway,identifiedhimselfto emergencydispatcher,followeddefendantto the locationwherepolicemade the arrest,and remainedin contactwith the dispatcheruntil the officerarrivedat the scene. Thiscoupledwiththe officerdetecting odorof alcoholboth inside the justified personandbreath a cupthe witness sawthe defendant carry,andon or aboutdefendant's the detention and arrestof the defendant.

10

Villareal State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2008,no pet.). 2008WL 4367616 [1't Officerreceivedcall from dispatchthat citizen was followinga possibledrunk driver and had observed the defendant'svehicle pu! into a parking lot where she uras approachedand investigated bythe officer. Theofficerhad dispatcher and callthe citizeninformant havehimmeet the officerat theparkinglot wherehe repeatedthe detailsof the bad drivinghe had observed.ln upholding stop,the Courtfocusedon the fact that the observations the reportedby the informant of the defendant'sdriving behavior constitutedcriminalactivity,specifically, DWl. Since the informantchose to follow defendant's vehicleafter reportingthe conduct,he was not "trulyan anonymous informer."In additionthe officercorroborated identification detailswhenhe Garcia's Iocateddefendant's in the parkinglot. car Hawes State,125S.W.3d v. 535(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.], 2002, pet.). no [1't Policereceivedcall from tow truck driverreportingrecklessdrivingand that he was followingthe vehicle. Officerarrivedand pulled defendantover based on information receivedand without pulledover continued seerng any trafficviolations.Thetruckdriveron seeingdefendant without stopping. In holdingthe stop was valid, the Court found that by presenting hisinformationto the policevia hisbusinessbdispatcher following suspectin hisownreadilytraceable and vehicle, fhe placedhimself a position thetruckdriver in wherehe couldbe heldaccountable hisintervention. for Ihese indicia of reliability, when combinedwith the officer's corroborationof the identification providedsufficient details, reasonablesuspicion justify the investigative stop. to Statev. Fudqe, S.W.3d 42 226(Tex.App.-Austin, 2001,no pet.). Officer'sso/e basis for thesfopvvasthe details baddriving provided him by a cabdriverin of to a face to faceencounter.Courtheldthat that wasa sufficient basisfor the stopof the defendant. Courtreferred anddistinguished 146 thesefacfsfromFloridav. J.L..529 U.S. 266,120S.Ct.1375, L.Ed.2d 254 (2000). Statev. Nelson, S.W.3d 228 899(Tex.App.-Austin 2007,no pet.). Winborn State,2007WL 1711791 v. pdr (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, ref'd). Brother State,166S.W.3d v. 255(Tex.Crim.App. 2005), cert.denied,546 U.S.1150(2006). Pipkin State,114S.W.3d v. pet.). 649(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2003, no Statev. Stolte, S.W.2d 991 336(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1999, pet.). no pet.ref'd). Statev. Sailo, 910S.W.2d 184(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1995, Statev. Adkins, S.W.2d pet.ref'd). 829 900(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1992, Ferquson State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 573 516 1978). Albert State, v. pet.ref'd). 659S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston 41 [14thDist]1983, lnformation froma concerned citizenmayprovide sufficientbasis officerto make investigative for sfop.

1-r

2.

IDENTIFIED CITIZEN-CREDIBLE RELIABLE AND

Gabrish State, v. (Tex.App.-Corpus (Notdesignated 2009WL 2605899 2009, pet.) no for Christi publication). Civilians obserued apparently get an drunkdefendant in hiscar after urinatingoutsideand drive away. One of them called911 and they all pointedout the car to the officer who stoppedthe defendantbasedon theirdescription multipleindicators intoxication.ln upholding stop, of of the the Courtfocusedon the fact that the civilianinformants placed themselves a position in where theycouldhavebeeneasilyidentified held responsible that the information provided and and they to the officer was sufficientlyreliable to supportthe temporarydetention. Himev. State, pet.ref'd). 998S.W.2d 893(Tex.App.-Houston, Dist.]1999, [14th Citizenstopped BurgerKng to callpoliceafterobserving at suspecfsweruing towardsother cars as if passed. Citizengave her name and noted that suspecthad stoppedat BK, too. Officer arriveda minutelater justas suqpecfwasleavingBK and stoppedsuspecf. Courtheld sufficient basis for stopnotingthat an (identified) citizenwho callsin to report criminalacfs is inherently credibleand reliable. Seealso,Vanderhorst State, S.W.3d v. 52 237(Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, pet.). no -Waco 2006,pet.ref'd). Mitchell State,187S.W.3d v. 113(Tex.App. Pospisil State, v. (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008WL 4443092 2008,no pet.). Off-duty firefighter called911 to reporta reckless on driverhe wasfollowing. Based the detailsof thatcall,officerquickly proper,the locatedandstoppedthe defendant's vehicle.ln findingthe stop Courtfocusedon threefactors. First, notedthat the firefighter's it reportwasnot "anonymous" as he gave his name and occupation for the information he therebymakinghimselfaccountable reported.Further, callerwasa "professional the firefighter," makinghimoneof the typesof people (alongwith teachers police officers) and that we teachour childrenare generally trustworthy and reliable. Finally, the officer respondedin a shortperiod of time allowinghim to corroboratethe vehicledescription. 3. DETAILS POLIGE OF BROADCAST ADMISSIBLE ARE

McDuff State,2011WL v. (Tex.App.-El 1849540 Paso2011). Officer testifiedthat he stopped the vehicledefendantwas drivingafter receivinginformation providedby hison-board computer terminalthat vehicle registration expiredin November had the 2007. Defendant arguesthat the Statefailedto prove that he had committed trafficviolation a because did not offer any evidencefo subsfantiate it hearsaytestimonyregardingthe officer's expiredregistration.ln upholdingthe stop,the Courtof Appealspointsout that the Stateis not requiredto prove that the defendantactuallyviolateda particularstatutein orderto establish a reasonable suspicion probable or cause. The Statemustonlyelicittestimonythatthe officerknew sufficient facfsfo reaso pointed nablysuspect thedefendant violated trafficlaw. lt further that had a 1,2

out that hearsayis generallyadmissible a suppression in hearingbut evenif the Statecouldnot rely on hearsayto establish reasonablesuspicion, officer'stestimonyregardinga vehicle an registration check,like testimony regarding driver'slicense underthepublic a check,is admissible recordsexception. Kimballv. State, S.W.3d 24 555(Tex.App.-Waco 2000,no pet.). properly Officerwas allowed, over objection, relate information received he overthepoliceradio to by unidentified dispatcherthat unknown motorist called911toreportpossibly intoxicated driver had in vehiclematchingdefendant's. Court statedthat an officer should be allowedto relate the informationon which he was acting. Suchinformationis not hearsayas ff is not offeredfor the truthof thematterasserted to showhowand whythe defendant's identified but vehicle wasinitially and followed. pet Ellis State, S.W.3d v. 99 783(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2003, ref'd.). [1 plateon the computer hiscar Officertestified that basisfor stopwashe ran defendant's license in and receiveda response appellant's had possibly that car beeninvolvedin a robberythreedays earlier.Defendantobjected onbasrs hearsay.Here,thetestimonywasnotofferedtoprovethe of truthof thematterasserted; wasofferedto showprobable it whenappellant causefor thedetention was stoppedfor traffic violations. 4. ANONYMOUS FROMEMSTECHNICIAN TIP

Glover State, v. pet.ref'd). 870S.W.2d 198(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1994, It wasproperfor officerwho witnessed erraticdrivingand basedthe stopsolelyon information no providedby EMTto makesardsfop. 5. INFORMATION GOMMUNICATED 911 OPERATOR TO BUT NOT TO OFFICER WILLSUPPORT STOP

DerichsweilerState, v. 348S.W.3d 906(Tex.Crim.App. 2011), s.ct.cert.denied, 3, 2011. Oct. TheCourtholdsthata 911policedispatcher beregarded a cooperating isto as officerforpurposes of makinga reasonablesuspicion determination.Therefore, information reportedto the 911 if is operator, information go to supportreasonable that will suspicion stopan individual to evenif that information nof communicated the officerwhoperformsfhe sfop. is to

l_J

6.

ANONYMOUS FROM TIP HITCHHIKER

Mann State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 525 174 1975). Anonymou call from hitchhiker providedj ustificationfor investigativedetention. s 7. ANONYMOUS FROM TIP TRUCKDRIVER

pet Gansky State,180S.W.3d240(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2005, ref'd). v. Whileon routinepatrol,DeputyPerkinsreceivedreportsfrommultipletruckdriversthat a whitecar was drivingthe wrongway on the highwayand struckor almost struckothervehicles,signs,and gaspumps. ln holdingthatthe "anonymous provideda sufficienf tips" basisfor the stop,the Court focusedon potentialdangerand extremeriskto the public,and statedthat courtsshouldlook to not only the "content the information the qualrty the information reviewing officer's of but in an of decisionfo sfop and detain." 8. A N ON Y MOU STIP.INSUFFICIENTDETAILS

Martinez State, v. 348S.W.3d 919(Tex.Crim.App.2011). Policeofficerlackedreasonablesuspicion investigatory for detentionof pickup truck drivenby defendant basedon an anonymous cal/erbreport that a pickup truck of the samemake and of similar color had stoppedat a particular intersection,where driverplaced two bicyclesin bed of truckand drove west. Thoughinvestigativestopoccurredclosein time to caller'sreportand within threequartersof a mile westof the reportedincident,there was no complaint stolenbicycles, of anonymous callerdid not reportcontextualfactors reasonably linkingthe unusual and suspicious activityto a theft,and officerdid not seeanybicycles bed of truckuntilhe approached truck. in the The Court focused on the fact that the anonymouscaller did not provide any identification information the officeror to dispatch, not followfhe suspect's to vehicle, wasnot present the at did scenebeforethe stopandthe callerneverreferredto whathe sawas a'theft." JudgeKellerwrites a well-reasoned dissenf. D. BADDRIVING/CONDUCT NOT= CRIMINAL NEED OFFENSE

Martinez State,2OlO 188734 v. (Tex.App.-Dallas WL 2010). Officertestified observeddefendant he drivingon a flat, straight,well-litroad with no obstacles whendefendant's vehicleleft itslane and hit the curb with enoughforceto push it backinto the lane. In officer'sexperience, intoxicated driverssomefimes the curb, demonstrating hit they are unableto safelynavigatethe road. He furthertestified, wasearlySundaymorningshortlyafter it the barshad closed, "highDWI'time. Because believeddefendant a he he mightbe intoxicated, stoppedthe car to investigate further. Defendant focusedon the fact that hittingcurbalonewas justifiedthe stop. not a trafficviolation, Courtof Appeals but held that totalityof circumstances

L4

Foster State, v. 326S.W.3d 609(Tex.Crim.App. 2010). Courtof Appeals found insufficient basis for stop. Court of CriminalAppeals reversedfinding. justifying Policehad reasonablesuspicion believethat defendant to may have been intoxicated, temporary detention furtherinvestigation for whenat 1:30a.m.a few blocks fromcity'sbar district, officerobserued defendant's truckcomeup extremely vehicle red lightand close behindofficer's at appeared lurch. Officerthenhearda rewing soundand noticeddefendant's to trucklurchforward again; in light of the time of night and location, the officer's training and experience,and defendant's aggressive driving,it was rationalfor the officerto have inferredthat the defendant may have beenintoxicated. Derichsweiler v. State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2011), cert. 348 906 s.ct. denied, 3,2011. Oct. The defendantwas reportedto be stoppingnext to vehiclesin parking lots and staringat the occupants thosevehicles.Thatconduct of resulted a 911callthatendedwiththe detention in and arrestof the defendant. Ihe rssue- was the defendant's non-criminal behaviorenoughtojustify an investigative stopwithoutreasonablesuspicion a particularoffense? The Court said yes, of pointing thereis no requirement pointto a particular out to suspicion offense, ratherreasonable but that he wasaboutto engagein criminalactivity. Statev. Alderete,314 pet. S.W.3d 469(Tex.App.-El Paso2Q10, ref'd). Policeofficers had reasonable suspicion stopdefendant suspicion DWl, wheredefendant to on of continuously sweruedwithinher lane for half of a milein the earlymorninghours,and officerswere trainedto detectindividuals drivingwhileintoxicated, evenif defendant not violateany traffic did regulation. Rafaelli State, v. pet.ref'd). 881S.W.2d 714(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, Weavingin hislane, thoughnot inherentlyillegalact, did providesufficienfbasis for officerfo sfop defendant's vehicle. Dowler State, S.W.3d v. 44 666(Tex.App.-Austin 2001,pet.ref'd.). tn supportof an anonymous officer also obserued tip, defendant weaveor drift within his taneof traffic,touchingthe outsidewhiteline more than once and once crossinginto an on ramp when defendant no reason enterthe on ramp. Defendant had per to wasa/sodrivingtwenty miles hour belowthe posted limitand failedto respondwhenthe officerturnedon thepatrol car'semergency lights. Officertestified hisexperience is uncommon soberdriversto drivein that fashion. in it for Fox v. State,900 S.W.2d345 (Tex.App.-FortWorth1995), pet. dism'd,improv.granted, 930 S.W.2d [Tex.Crim.App. 607 1996]). Fluctuatingspeed and weaving within the lane did provide sufficient basis for officer fo sfop defendant's vehicle.
15

Townsend State, v. pet.ref'd). 813S.W.2d181(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1991, [14th Testimony that defendantwove back and forth was sufficient basis even in the absence any of evidence was unsafefo do so. it Oliphant State,764 pet.ref'd). v. S.W.2d 858(Tex.App.-Corpus 1989, Christi Defendant's extended intersection stop;thendefendant car into at madewideturn,driftedin and out of hislane and sweruedwithin hislane. E. (CCF) CARE-TAK|NG FUNCT|ON" "COMMUNITY

Wriqht State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim. v. 7 148 App.1999) rev'don remand S.W.3d (Tex.App. 18 245 - Austin 2000,pet.ref'd). The casecameto the Courtof CriminalAppeals whenthe AustinCourtof Appeals failedto apply the "community care-taking function" holding stopin thiscasefo be unreasonable. basis in The the for the sfop wasthat the officerobserved passenger the vehiclevomiting of a car window. in out a The Courtof Appeals not believethat conceptcovereda passenger's did actions. The Courtof CriminalAppeals heldthatthe exception couldapplyto thesefactsand listedfourfactorsthatare relevantin determining providesa sufficient whencommunity care-taking baslsfor a traffic stop: 1) 2) 3) 4) the natureand levelof disfressexhibited the individual by the locationof the individual whetherthe individualwasaloneand/orhad accessfo assisfance independent of that offeredby the officer;and to what extent the individual-if nof assisfed-presenteda dangerto himselfor others.

Thecourtaddedthat, "aspart of hisdutyto'serveandprotect'a policeofficermaysfopandassrsf person-giventhe totalityof the circumstances--would an individualwhom reasonable a believeis in needof help."The casewasremanded backto the Courtof Appeals whichin 18 S.W.3d245 (Tex. App. - Austin 2000) applied the above mentioned factors and found the stop to be unreasonable. 1. A P P L IE S

Gonzales State, v. 342S.W.3d 151(Tex.App..-Eastland 2011). Defendant's detention was justifiedunder the communitycaretaking exceptionto the warrant requirement; pull officerobserued vehicle overto the sideof a lightlytraveled a highway sometime before1:00a.m.and wasconcerned the operator the vehiclemightneedassistance; that and of thus,officerwasmotivated primarilyby hiscommunity trafficwas caretaking duties, and because minimal thelocation in wheredefendant stopped, nearbyandonlya few was therewereno houses busrnesses the area. lf defendanthad needed assisfance, wouldhave difficultyfinding in he
.LO

anyone other than officer to help him, and officer'sbelief that defendantneeded help was objectively reasonable. Munoz State,201 Wt 3304242 (Tex.App.-FortWorth201 v. 0 0). Wheredefendant wasobserved traveling almosthalftheposfedspeedlimit,andpullinginto the at parkinglot of closed busrness alonein her car and absent officerhad no accessfo assisfance, the it wasa propercommunity vehicle determine to caretaking stop.Policeofficer'sstopof defendant's if sheuras/osf was reasonable function. Even thoughthe exercise hiscommunity caretaking of fourthfactor,whethersheposeda dangerto herself othersffnof assisted, weighsagainstthe or applicationof the communitycaretakingfunction, "not all factorsmust supportthe applicationof the exception determining in whetherthe officeracted reasonably exercisinghis community in caretaking function." Chilman State, S.W.3d (Tex. v. 22 App.-Houston[14thDist]2000,pet.ref'd.). 50 Around2:00 a.m., the officerobserved red car stoppedin front of a barricade erectedto block a campusentrance.The officer did not know when the red car had pulled up to the barricade although knewthe car wasnot therewhenhe passedby the same spottwentyminutesearlier. he Officer obserued passenger the leavethered carandsurveythebarricade thecampus to entrance. ln an effortto determine whatthe car'soccupants to weredoingon campusand possibly provide someassisfancebecause they appeared be lost,officerturnedon hispatrol car'semergency to equipment.Thisactionpromptedthe passenger jump back into the red car. Whenthe officer to approached, Defendant the him whowasin thedriver'sseat,asked officerwhyhe hadstopped the and declaredthat there was no reason to stop him. After determiningthe Defendantwas intoxicated,the officer arrestedhim for DWl. Stopheld to bejustified. Hulit State, S.W.2d (Tex. v. 982 431 App.1998). Crim. Policewere dispatched response a reportof a "womanpossiblyhavinga heart attackin a in to vehicle."Officerfounda pickuptrucksittingin the inside laneof a service roadaboutfiftyfeetfrom an intersection and saw an individualslumpedover the steeringwheelof the truck. The truck enginewas stillrunningand the windowswererolledup. Theofficerapproached vehicleand the beganrappingon the windowandyellingat the driverto wakeup. Withfheassisfa of a second nce officer,the driver awakenedand openedthe door of the pickup. The testifyingofficersmelled alcohol aboutthedriver.Oncethedrivergot out of thetruckat theofficer's request,thetruckbegan "thatArticle rollingbackward. Defendantwasarrestedfor DWl. TheCourtofCriminalAppealsheld l, Section contains requirement a seizureor searchbe authorized a warrant, 9 no and that that by a seizureor search that is otherwise reasonable not be foundto be in violation that section of will because wasnot authorized a warrant."Thecourtconcluded it by on that, based the totalityof the circumstances, officers's the werenot unreasonable. actions Cunninqham State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Beaumont no pet.). v. 1998, 966 811 Officerstopped Defendant afterobserving drivinglate at nightat an unsafespeedon a flat tire her in a bad neighborhood. SfopiustifiedunderCCF.
L1

2.

DOESN'T APPL\

(Notdesignated (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2010, pet.) no Koterasv. State,2O10 1790808 WL [14th for publication). caretaking stop. Courtof Appeals rejectedTrialCourt'sfindingthat this was a propercommunity pulling one's vehicleonto the shoulderof the road does not Specifically, found that merely it warrantdetention a law enforcement of by officer,and the curiosity an officerto see"whatis going on" is not sufficient meet the community function. to caretaking Franks State,241 v. 135(Tex.App.-Austin 2007,pet.ref'd). S.W.3d Thiswas an appealof a motionto suppress denial. Ihe issue was whetherthe officer'scontact with a visiblyupseffemalemotoristin a parked car with the motorrunningand hisrefusal to allow initial her to leave,fellwithinCommunity Care-taking Exception.TheCourtfoundthat the officer's whenthe interaction the defendantwas encounter, with becamea detention an butthat encounter officer told the defendant she couldnTleave. The detentionwas not justified by the officer's communitycare-taking function becausethe defendantdid not exhibita high enoughlevel of drsfresgshe was not in an unsafelocation, and shedid not posea dangerto herselfor others. Corbin State, S.W.3d v. 85 272,(Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Defendant'scarwas theroad ontotheshoulderof observed at1:00a.m. crossing overasr?esfnpe limitwas65mph. and drivingon the shoulder about20 feet. He wastraveling mph whenspeed 52 Officerpulled Defendantover for failure to maintain a single lane and becausehe felt the Defendant mightbe drunkor in need of assisfance.Beforepullinghim over,the officerfollowed it theDefendant abouta mileandobserved trafficviolations. for no Uponstopping, wasdiscovered the thattheDefendant cocaine on had strapped hisback. Themajorityfocused whether officer's to beliefthat Defendant neededhelp was "reasonable." Courtfurtherheld that the mostweight The by shouldbe givento factornumberone, namely,"thenatureand level of disfressexhibited the individual." Courtheld that the "community The function"did not applyin this case. care-taking pdr Andrews State, 79 S.W.3d v. 649(Tex.App.- Waco2002, ref'd). pull wife,front Officerobserved Defendant's Defendant to the sideof theroad and thenobserved by seafpassenger, lean out the door and vomit,and the Defendant droveoff and was stopped officer. Courtheld stopwasnotjustifiedby the community function. care-taking

Id

F.

JURISDICTION WHENOUTSIDE OFFICER'S ARREST AUTHORITY 1. FORATRAFFIC OFFENSE (a) = MADEBEFORE 9-01-05 NO STOPS

Statev. Kurtz, 152S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App., 72 2004). for An officerof thepolicedepartment a city doesnot haveauthority sfopa person committing to of a traffic offense when the officer is in anothercity within the same county. (b) (qX1) Article 14.03 policeofficerto makea warrantless Authorizes municipal a arresffor a trafficoffensethat occurs anywherein the countyor counties whichthe officer'smunicipality located. is Note: This in legislativechangeeffectivelyoverrulesthe Kurtz case fsfed above. 2. CANSTOPANDARREST FOR'BREACHOF PEACE'' = MADEAFTER 9-01-05 YES STOPS

(Notdesignated (Tex.App. Worth2006,pet.ref'd) for Statev. McMorris, 2006WL 1452097 Fort publication). Ihis case addressedfhe rssueof whethera municipalpolice officer hasauthorityfo sfop a driver outsideof hisjurisdiction whenhe reasonablysuspects driverof DWl. Thelaw in effectis the the pre-2005versionof Article 14.04of the CCP. Thetrial court suppressed stopand the Court fhe of Appeals reversed. Thetrial court viewedthisas an officerstoppinga vehiclefor a trafficoffense, failureto yieldrightof way,whichhe cannotdo and the Courtof Appeals viewedthe trafficoffense as givingtheofficer reasonable was suspicion thedefendant DWIwhichdoessupportthe stop. that for Vafentich State,2005 1405801 v. (Tex.App.-Fort WL Worth2005, pet.)(Notdesignated no publication). Officerwasauthorized detainDefendant he suspicion believe was to to because hadreasonable he pursuedher he obseruing breachof the peace, that is, drivingwhileintoxicated, a and because from hislawfuljurisdiction FlowerMounda very shortdistance into Lewisville. in Ruizv. State, 907S.W.2d 1995, pet.). no 600(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Officer,who was outsideof hisjurisdiction,couldproperly stopand arrestdefendantwhomhe obserued drivingthe wrongway downa highwayfor a "breachof the peace." Seealso:Romo State,577 v. 251 1979). S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.

I9

3.

TO MAKEARREST FORDWI

Preston State, v. 1998, pet.). no 983S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Tyler 24 Officermay arresta suspecffor DWI even thoughhe is outsideof hisjurisdictionunderArticle notifiesan 1a.B@) of the lexas Codeof Criminal Procedure long as he, as soonas practical, so jurisdictionwherethe arrestwas made. officerhaving 4. DOESNOT FAILURE NOTIFY TO WITHIN JURISDICTION OFFICERS VIOLATE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

pet. ref'd.)(Not Turnbow State,2003WL 2006602 (Tex.App.-Fort v. Worth,May 1, 20Q3, designated publication). for Bachick State, S.W.3d v. 30 549(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000,pet.ref'd). Officerundertooka valid traffic sfop oufsrdehisjurisdictionafter observinga traffic offensewithin hisjurisdiction which ultimatelyled to the arrest of the defendantfor DWl. Officer did not notify arresting agencywithinthatjurisdiction required 1a.ffi@). Hisfailurefo do so didnot warrant as by is evidencesuppressionunder the exclusionary rule. Court held that the notice requirement unrelatedto the purposeof the exclusionary rule. 5. CIry VS. COUNTY.WIDE JURISDICTION (a) COUNTY-WIDE

for Sawyerv. State,2009 WL 722256(Tex.App.-Austin 2009, no pet.) (Not designated publication). (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] Doqavv. State, S.W.3d614 101 no 2003, pet.). [1't (2006). Brotherv. (Tex.Crim.App.2005), denied,546 1150 State, S.W.3d255 166 U.S. cert. Officermade the traffic sfop oufsrdehisjurisdiction (city) but within the same county. The court foundthattherewasnothing thelegislative in to Crim.Proc.Ann. historyof amendments Tex.Code Art. 1403 (Vernon Supp.2002)and Tex. Loc.GovT. .001 (d . 341.021 Aernon CodeAnn. $341 G) 1999) to indicate thelegislature . law that intended abrogate common rulethatthejurisdiction the to of an officerof a classA general-law to municipality county-wide.TheCourtdeclined follow was rulings to the contrary. (b) oFFtcERWtTHtNJUR|SD|CTION'SPARTICIPATION

Armendariz State, S.W.3d v. 123 401(Tex.Crim.App.2003). ThelowerCourtof Appeals outsidethe reversed casebecause foundthatthe stopoccurred it fhis jurisdictionand was thereforeunlawful. ln rejectingthis argument, Court arrestingofficer's the pointedout that the police who were outsidetheir city limitsand arguablytheirjurisdictionwere acting on informationprovided by a county sheriff (within whosecountyjurisdiction the stop did
zv

occur) who observedthe traffic offense,radioedthe informationto the police and stayedin radio participation the circumstances contactwith thepoliceup to the stop. In effect,the sheriff's in justas mucha participant the arrestas if he had in surrounding defendant's the arrestmadehim seizedthe defendant himself. (c) HOTPURSUIT

Yeager State,104S.W.3d v. 103(Tex.Crim.App.2003). After observing defendant the nearlydrive hisvehicleinto a ditchwhiteleavingthe parkinglot of pulled a bar withintheircity limits, and ultimately officers followed to furtherevaluatehisdriving him him himoverfor investigation DWIoutsidethe city limits. Theystopped aftertheyobserved him of hit almost anothervehicle. Thetrialcourtheld sfop waslegaland the Courtof Appealsreversed holding that the officers' "Type B Municipality"authority ended at the city limits, and it further rejectedthe "hotpursuit"argument it foundthat there wasno "chase" "pursuit" officers as or as goodexample merelyfollowed defendant.TheCourtof Criminal the Appealsfoundthat thiswasa of "HotPursuit" and the dictionary definition "pursuit" of includes"follow."The testis whetherthe initial"pursuit" waslawfullyinitiatedon the groundof suspicion, the Courtfoundin this case and that it was. Ihe rssueof thejurisdiction a "TypeB Municipality" not reached. was of Turnbow State,2003WL 2006602 (Tex.App.-Fort v. Worth,May 1,2003, pet. ref'd.)(Not designated publication). for Officerobserved defendant's vehiclespeeding and crossoverthe centerline five times. Though the officertried to initiatethe stopwithinthe countyline, by the time the defendantwaspulledover, he was justundera mileacrossthe line. Theofficertestified a Motionfo Suppress hearingthat at he didnotfeelthathe wasinvolved a chaseor in a pursuitwhilehe followed defendant.The the in defendantwasconvicted a later trial and arguedon appealthat the arrestwas illegaland not at "hotpursuit." TheCourtof Appeals foundthat it wasa legal stopunderthe "hotpursuit"doctrine and furtherfoundthe doctrineapplies believehe is in even whenan officerdoesnot subjectively pursuit. hot G. . PRETEXT STOPS NO LONGER BASISFORSUPPRESSION

Crittendon State, v. 899S.W.2d 668(Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Pretert sfops are valid so long as objectivebasis for stopexisfs. H. OPERATING VEHICLE UNSAFE IN CONDITION

pet.ref'd.). Sweeney State, S.W.3d v. 1999, 6 670(Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.] (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997, pet.h.). Statev. Kloecker,939 no S.W.2d 209 [1st Trialjudgeheld that therewas insufficient reversedholding basisfor the stop. Courtof Appeals that officer obseruation that defendantwas driving on a tirelessmefal wheel and knew this constitutedthe traffic offenseof drivinga vehicleon a highwayin an unsafecondition. 2I

I.

FAILING DIMLIGHTS TO

pet.ref'd). Texas McCrary, S.W.2d v. 986 259(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, providesa sufficientbasrsfor a traffic Violationof a portionof the traffic code (faitintg dim tights) to sfop. J. RAPID ACCELERATION/SPINNING TIRES 1. YES

Fernandez State, v. 306S.W.3d Worth2010, pet.). no 354(Tex.App.-Fort pickuploudly squealifsfiTes sawlightsmokecomingfromthe tires Officerhearddefendant's and as thepickupfishtailedabouttwo feet outsideitslaneof trafficsupporting officer'sopinionthat what he observed constitutedreckless therewere drivingandsupported stop. Ihis wassoalthough the no vehiclesdirectlyaround defendant's vehiclethoughthere was testimonythere were other vehicles the area. in Bicev. State,17 S.W.3d 354(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2000,rehoverruled). [1't Collins State, v. 829S.W.2d no 894(Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, pet.). Harris State, S.W.2d773 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 713 1986, pet.). no [1't 2. NO

Statev. Guzman, S.W.3d362(Tex.App.-Austin 240 2007,pdr ref'd). Thespinning motionof onetire of defendant's truckas truckbeganto movefroma stopaftertraffic green did not alone give police officer reasonablesuspicion tight turned that defendant was pertainingto racing on highways,and thus unlawfullyexhibitingacceleration violationof statute in officer'sstopof defendant's vehicleon that basiswas unlawful. K. WEAVING WITHIN LANE 1. YES

pet.ref'd). Statev. Alderete, S.W.3d 314 469 (Tex.App.-El Paso,2010, Reversing TrialCourt, Court Appeals thatofficers reasonable the to the held had suspicion stop of defendant suspicion DWIwheredefendant on within lanefor halfof her of continuously swerved a mile in the early morninghours.Officers drivingwhile were trainedto detectindividuals intoxicated based thattraining, and drivers on weaving a common is characteristic intoxicated of sotheCourt heldthatevenif defendant notviolate traffic regulations, wasa sufficient there did any basis thestop. for 22

Dunkelbero State, v. Worth, 2008,pet.ref'd), 276S.W.3d 503(Tex.App.-Fort Thedefendant's vehiclewas obserued weavingwithinlanein road. Thevehiclecrossedthe lane it dividerat leastonce. ln supporting as the basisfor the stopand distinguishing fromholdings this The thathaveheldweaving insufficienf a basrs, Courtfocused thefollowing: officerstated the on as lights and that basedon his training,defendant's weaving, slow reactionto officer'semergency drivingat that time of night are three of the sixteenclues that indicatedthe driver might be intoxicated. pdr v. Reversed: Curtis Curtis State, v. 209S.W.3d 688,(Tex.App.-Texarkana,2006, granted). v. State, PD-1820-06, WL 317541(Tex.Crim.App.2007). No. Conviction affirmed Curtis 2007 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, No. 2008). State. 06-05-00125-CR, WL 707285 2008 Courtof Appeals overruledthe trial court'sdenial of motionfo suppresson the followingfacts. Officer'sobseruing defendantsweruing the fromlane to lane on a four-lanedividedhighwaydid not give him reasonable susprbion intoxication supporttraffic stop,even thoughofficertestified of to whereofficers not testify did he hada suspicion driver'sweaving that wasthe result intoxication, of and there were that anythingother than defendant's weavingled them fo suspecfintoxication, numerous reasonsotherthan intoxication wouldcausea driverto swerve. that Thisholdingwasreversedby the Courtof Criminal Appealswhichheld that the Courtof Appeals to had appliedthe wronglegalstandard its determination the issueof reasonablesuspicion in of make the traffic stop. Therejectedstandardarose from the Court'ssuggestion that the State neededto disprovethe non-intoxicated for reasons that may have accounted the weavingof the defendant's car. (Notdesignated (Tex.App.-Fort for Statev. Arend,2005WL 994710 Worth2005,pet. ref'd.) publication). Trooper'sobservationthat the Defendantweaved within his lane as he followed him for approximately seconds, 50 combined with hisexperience a policeofficerand hisbeliefthat said as providedsufficient to drivingtendedto indicateintoxication, reasonable suspicion justify the stop. pet.ref'd). Heldv. State, 948S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997, 45 [14th Weaving neednot constitute offenseto providebasisfor a propertraffic stop. an pet.ref'd). Cookv. State, S.W.3d 63 924(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2002, [14tn Gajewskiv. no State, 450(Tex.App..-Houston Dist]1997, pet). 944S.W.2d [14th Weaving and out of severaltrafficlanesmay not be negated the factthatno othertrafficwas in by aroundat the time-in that thisactionraises ratherthana mere of reasonable suspicion intoxication traffic offense.

z5

2.

NO

Fowler State, v. Worth2008,pet.ref'd). 266 S.W.3d 498(Tex.App.-Fort The defendant's vehiclecrossrngone time into adjacentlane by tire'swidthwhen there was no other trafficin area did not constitutesufficientbasis for traffic stop. The officer alsotestifiedthat he did not find the drivingunsafebut thoughtit violatedTransportation Code. TheCourtheld that an officer'shonestbut mistaken trafficlaw whichprompteda sfopis not an understanding the of exception the reasonable to requirement.Thereis a/sono mentionin the recordof the susprbion officer'ssuspecfing driverwasintoxicated. the v. no pet.). State Huddleston, S.W.3d711(Tex.App.-Austin,2005, 164 Officerobserued suspecfvehiclepull out from the bar'sparkinglot, proceedto withinone-and-a half milesof the bar, drift twiceto the right sideof the roadwayand crossover the whiteshoulder the stripe, fog line. Theactivated or videoshowsthat the right wheelsof the car crossed fog line threemore timesduringthe nert threeminufes. He neversaw the vehiclecrossthe yellowline were neither separating two lanesof traffic. He further testified movementsindividually the the unlawful unsafe,but the combined nor numberdid make them unsafe. Solebasis raisedfor the failure to stay withina singlemarkedlane. Only after Motionto Suppressu/asgranted sfop r,rras did Stateoffer otherjustificationsfor the sfop; reasonablesuspicionof DWI and community the caretaking, theseweredeemeduntimely but waived. Therefore, Courtholding and therefore that the officerhad no reasonablesuspicion make the stopwas upheld. to pet.ref'd). Bassv. State, S.W.3d 64 2001, 646(Tex.App.-Texarkana Observation the defendant swerving overthelanemarkerdid that was withinhislaneand crossing notprovidesufficientbasis fora trafficstop. Though State arguesthattheofficerwasstopping the the defendantbasedupona trafficoffense,the Court pointsout that the officerin this casenever testified that the lane changeoccurred an "unsafe in manner" did the recordshowhow many nor timeshe had crossedover the lane marker. Statev. Cernv, S.W.3d 28 796(Tex.App.-Corpus 2000,no pet.). Christi ThisisaSfafebappealofthetrialjudge'sgrantingamotion Defendantwasobserved fosuppress. by the officer swervingacross the center lane divider and swervingover the white shoulderline three times. The Courtupheldthe suppression basedupon the lack of testimonythat the lane to changewasin an unsafemanner. TheCourtalsonotedthatit willgivedeference a trialjudge's ruling. pet.ref'd). Statev. Arriaqa, S.W.3d 1999, 5 804(Tex.App.-San Antonio In a DWIinvestigatory suspicion detention, driftingwithinthelane doesnot give riseto reasonable to pull over. Underthe totalityof the circumstances, officer musthavemore factswhichlead the him to intoxication. example,justpulledout of a bar and the timeof night. Theofficeroffered For in no evidence showthat he believedthe defendant be intoxicated. Althoughmereweaving to to
z4

is one'slaneof trafficcanjustifyan investigatory whenthe weaving erratic, unsafe,or tends stop to indicate intoxication or other criminal activity, nothingin the record indicatedthat the arresting officerbelievedany of the aboveto be the case. pet.ref'd). Statev. Tarvin g72S.W.2d 910(Tex.App.-Waco 1998, , withinhislane Where evidence Motionfo Suppresswasthat defendantweaving at officerobserved and there was no testimonythat officerfound saiddrivingto be "erratic,unsafeor tendingto indicateintoxication," judge was correctin suppressing stop. /n essencethe evidence trial the Code545.060(a). didn'trise fo the level necessary support stopunder Iexas Transportation to See a/soEhrhartv. State.I S.W.3d929 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000,reh. overruled). pet.ref'd). Hernandez State, v. 1998, 983S.W.2d 867(Tex.App.-Austin to A single instance driftingacrossa trafficlane doesnot give an officerreasonablesuspicion of pull the car over unlessit was dangerousfo do so. For example,on a four lane highwaywith no trafficaround. L. DEFECTIVE TAIL LAMPOR BRAKELAMPAS BASISFORSTOP 1. NO

Vicknair State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1998on reh'g]). v. 751 180 [op. Wheresfop was basedon cracked tail lamp with some white light showingthrough,there was insufficient evidence that traffic statutewas violated. (Redlight alsoshowing.) 2. YES

no TexasDepartment Public Worth1999, 28 of v. Safety Hindman, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 989 pet.). Where sfop was basedon broken tail light with white light showing through and there was no evidence that any red light was showing,there was sufficient of evidence traffic statuteviolation and stopwasproper. (Vicknaj!Distinguished.) (Tex.App.-Fort Starrin State.2005 3343875 v. WL Worth2005,no pet.). vehicle was Stopwasbased observation oneof thethreebrakelights the defendant's on on that out. Defendant brakelights.The argued appeal Texaslawrequires twofunctioning on that only widthandtakes Court findsthatfederal for standard requires threebrakelights carsof a certain judicial notice the factthatthe car in question thosedimensions holdsthe stopwas and of fits laMul. 25

M.

MUSTRADAR EVIDENCE MEETKELLYTEST? 1. YES

Ochoa State, v. 994S.W.zd283(Tex.App.-ElPaso1999, pet.). no Officer's testimony he wascertified usehandheldradarto detect speed, he calibrated that to that and testedhisradarinstrument the day he issuedthe speedingticket,and that the gun used on properfoundation admitting radarwavesto calculate radar speedwasinsufficient establish for to evidence.Pursuantto Kellv v. State.824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992),the officermust furtherbe able to explainthe calculationthe gun made or explain the theory underlyingthe calculation. Errorheld harmless fhiscasebecause in motoristwasdriving officeralsogaveopinion at a "highrate of speed." 2. JUDICIAL NOTICE RADAR OF

lckev. State,36 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston ref'd). 913 2OO1,pet. [1"tDist.] Trial Court took judicial notice of the scientificreliability of radar over defense objection. The defenseappealedarguingthe Courtcouldnot take such noticeand the radar readingwas not admissible underKelly v. Stateciting Ochoa. The AppellateCourtheld that where the officer formedthe opinion that defendantwas that speeding beforeusingradarand testified radarmerely providedsufficient confirmed suspiclon his that appellantwas speeding evidence that the officer had a reasonable suspicion and that the stopwasproper. Thecourtspeaksto the Ochoacases and commentsthat the questionof whethera judge could properlytakejudicial notice of the scientific reliability radaris an interesting of one, doesnot reachtherssueorresolvethatquestion. 3. RADAR MEETS PRONG KELLYTEST 1ST OF

Mills State, S.W.3d v. pet.ref'd). 99 200(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2002, ln agreeingwith the reasoning the Mavsonet of of opinion, theCourt pointsout theimportance flexibilityin determining admissibility scientificevidence."Whendealingwithwell-established the of scientifictheory, Kellv'sframeworkprovides courts flexibilityto utilize past precedenceand generally principles science concludeitstheoretical accepted validityas a matterof law. To of to place a significantburdenonjudicial economyby requiring strictlyconstrueKellv othenuisewould partiesto bringto court experts fieldsof science no reasonable person as in wouldchallenge that valid." Though firstprongis met under Kelly. the Statemust still establish the that the officer applieda valid techniqueand that it was correctlyappliedon the particularoccasionin question. pet.ref'd). Maysonet State, S.W.3d v. 91 365(Tex.App.-Texarkana, 16,2002, October ln this case,the suspecfwasstoppedfor going 74 mph in a 70mph speed zone. Thespeedwas measured withradar. Theofficertestified hadbeenusingtheradarequipment he since1990and had calibrated and fesfed hisradar unit one day beforehe stoppedfhe suspect. He couldnot 26

explainthe marginof error or the underlying scientifictheoryof radarand no evidenceshowingthe validityof the underlyingtheoryor techniqueappliedwas offered. Theappellantobjectsand cites Ochoafor the proposition that the predicateunder Kelly was not met. The Court rejectsthat "we argument holding in lightof society's that widespread of radardevices, viewtheunderlying use principles radaras indisputable validas a matterof law." Allthe Stateneededto scientific of and establish wasthat the officerapplieda validtechnique in correctlyon the occasion questionand the Court finds that a trier of fact could have found the officer'stestimonysufficient. 4. LIDAR RADARAS SOLE BASIS FOR STOP WITHOUTPROOFOF RELIABILIry INSUFFICIENT IS

Hallv. State, 297S.W.3d 294(Tex.Crim.App. 2009). Ihis caseinvolved stopfor speedingbasedon LIDAR a radardevice. ln findingtherewasno PC to supportthe stop,the Courtof CriminalAppealsheld there was no evidencethat the LIDAR devicewasusedto confirm arresting personal the officer's independent, obseruation defendant that was.speeding.Therewasno evidence showthat useof LIDAR to technology measurespeed to supp/iesreasonablytrustuvorthy informationor that the trialjudge tookjudicial notice of this fact, aswell as hr.s basrs doingso. As a result,the State for failedto establish thattheofficer,whorelied solelyon LIDAR technology conclude to that the defendant wasspeeding, probablecauseto had stophim. 5. RADAR NOTNEEDED JUSTIFY TO STOPFORSPEEDING

Deramus State v. (Tex.App.-Fort (Notdesignated publication). for Worth2011) ,2011WL 582667 Officerhad reasonablesuspicion defendant that codeby driving was violating transportation the at a speed thatwasneither reasonable prudentasrequired supportthe nor trafficstop.Although to therewas no evidence the posted of speedlimit and no radar was used,the officertestifiedthat defendant wasdrivingat a speedthatexceeded speed the limitas he wasfamiliarwithwhata car travelingthat blocklookedlike at the speedlimit. ln upholding stop,the Court pointsout an the officeris nof requiredby statutefo use radar to confirmspeed, and that it is not alwayspossib/e for an officerfo do so. Nor doesthe Statehaveto showthe defendant a actually committed traffic violation long as evidence as showsofficerreasonably occurred. believeda violation N. CITIZEN'S ARREST FOR"BREACH THEPEACE'' BASISFORSTOP AS OF

Cunninqham State v. (Notdesignated (Tex.App.-San no Antonio, 2004, pet.) ,2004WL2803220 for publication). The defendant nearly hit vehicleof a private securityofficer-forcedhim off the road and then proceeded weavein hislane. Theseactionsconstituted breachof the peace and poseda to a continuingthreat to the safety of the community. after Additionally,upon being approached stopping his vehicleat a drive-through, defendantexhibitedfurther symptomsof intoxication the and admitted had consumed he severalbeers.Courtheldthat the defendant committed breach a peaceand a citizen's of the arrestwas authorized this instance. in 21

Kunkel State, S.W.3d v. 46 328(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] March 8,2001,pet.ref'd). [14'n Defendant challengesthe him. Courtfound authority a civilianwrecker of driverto stopand "arrest" thateventhougha citizen makean arrest meremovingviolations, cumulative the driving cannot for behavior the defendant fhiscaseamounted a "breach thepeace." Thecitizenobserued of in of to thedefendant weaving backand forthovertheroadway, hittingand drivingoverthe curbabout20 timesover a quarterof a mile before shepulled up the gated entranceof sometown homesat whichpoint the civilianpulled in front of her blockingher entranceinto the complex,takingher car key and keepingher in her car untilthe policearrived.

o.

TURNING/EXITING WITHOUT SIGNAL A 1. YES

Wehrinq State, v. 276S.W.3d no 666(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, pet.). Defendant'sfailure signalhisintenttoturnwhenentering turnlaneand whenactually making to the the right turn constituteda traffic violation,and therefore,officerwas authorized stopand detain to defendant.Transportation Code545.104 Rehav. State, S.W.3d 99 no 373(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, pet.). Defendant turned leftat intersection for withoutsignatingand was subsequently stopped traffic violation.Secfion545.104 the Transportation of fo Coderequiresan operator useaturn signal'To indicate intentiontoturn, an changelanes, startfroma parkedposition." Aturn signalisrequired or regardlessof the degreeof the turn. No languagein the Statutelimitingit to turns of ninety degrees. Courtdrsagrees with Trahanand Zeno. pet.ref'd.). Kruqv. State,86 (Tex.App.-El S.W.3d764 Paso2002, Defendantfailed to signal histurn off of a public roadwayinto a private driveway. Courtheld that the failureto signalwasa trafficviolation with Trahanand Zeno. and disagrees 2.
NO

pet.ref'd). Statev. Zeno,44 S.W.3d 709(Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, Trahan State, S.W.3d146(Tex.App.-Beaumont v. 16 2000,no pet.). Defendant was sfoppedfor failingto signalwhenhe exitedthe freeway. Courtheld that 545.104 did not applyas therewasno evidence he madea turn or changed lanesto exitthe freeway. that /f basesthe findingthat there was no "turn"on itsbeliefthat the languageonly applies ninety to degreeturns.

28

P.

DETAIL? TOOCLOSELY''-SUFFICIENT "FOLLOWING 1. NO

Fordv. State,158 S.W.3d 488(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Iexas StateTrooper anothercar AndrewPeavypulledMatthewFord'svehicleover for following too closelyon Highway290 outsideof Houstonin violationof Texas TransportationCode I 545.062h1 whichprovidesthatan operatorshall, following maintain assured an if anothervehicle, cleardistance traffic,and betweenthe two vehicles that,considering speed the vehicles, the of so the conditionsof the highway,the operatorcan safely stop without collidingwith the preceding vehicleor veeringinto anothervehicle,object,or person or near the highway. Therewereno on detailsgiven beyond the statementthat the officer thoughtthe defendantwas traveling'too closely." Court of Appealsheld stop was proper and the Court of CriminalAppealsreversed holdingthat the officer's"conclusory facts. "The State statement" wasunsupported articulable by pertinenttowhatfactswould failedto elicitanytestimony Ford determine allowPeavytoobjectively wasviolating trafficlaw in supportof hisjudgment." a 2. YES

Stoker State, v. 170S.W.3d 807(Tex.App.-Tyler, 2005,no pet.). policeofficertestified he saw defendant's Because vehiclewhile that vehicle"rightup on another" traveling a highrate of speed, at suchthat defendant wouldnot havebeenable to safelysfop his vehicle, officergave specific, that factsto supportthe reasonablesuspicion defendant articulable had committed trafficviolation as tojustify stop. V.T.C.A.. a Transportation Code Q545.062. so (Not Wallace State. v. (Tex.App.-Texarkana 20,2005,pdr dismissed) 2005WL 3465515 Dec designated publication). for Testimony whenthedefendant that in car he changedlanes, pulled hisvehicle frontof another and causedthe driverof thissecondcar to haveto applythe brakes he because wastoo closecoupled with officer testimonythat the two vehicles were "[p]robablya car length or /ess" apart when defendant madethe lane changepresentedclear,concretefactsfrom whichthe trialcourtcould determinewhetherthe officerdid indeedhave "specific, articulablefacts,"which when viewed underthe totalityof the circumstances had concludeWallace couldlead the officerto reasonably violated trafficlaw. The Courtdistinguished a in the Ford case. thesefactsfrom fhose A. DRIVING UNDER THEPOSTED LIMIT SPEED 1. INSUFFICIENT THESE FACTS ON

TexasDepartment Public Antonio, 2008, Of v. Safety Gonzales, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San 276 88 no pet.). At 4:00 a.m. officerobserved defendant's driving45 mph in a 65 mph zone on a publichighway, andthatwasthe Atthehearingthe so/ebasisforthestop. casearose The outofanALRappeal. 29

officersfafedhe thoughtat that speedthe defendant was "impeding traffic." He alsoadmittedit wasfoggyand drizzly and the road wasweL Officeradmitted that thoseconditions mightwarrant a prudent driver'sslowingdown and alsocould not recall if there was any traffic on the roadway thatwasactually impeded bythe defendant's slowdriving. Theofficer's reportalsomentioned one instanceof driftingwithin hislane. The Courtheld this was insufficienf basisfor the sfop. /n so holdingthey noted officerdid not sayhe suspecfed defendant was intoxicated, that the the and s/owspeedwasnot clearlyin violation the ordinance of that referredto "reasonable prudent and underthe conditions" statingthe minimumand maximumspeedthat shouldbe traveled. in Richardson State, S.W.3d v. 39 634(Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000,no pet.). The Courtheld that the officerdid not havereasonable susprbion believethat defendantwas to committingoffense impeding of normaland reasonable movement trafficat time officermade of trafficstop. ln fhrscase,the defendant per wasdrivingapproximately miles hourin whatofficer 45 believedwas65mphzone,and defendant increasedspeed approximately mph whenofficer to 57 followed him, whereroad was underconstruction speedlimit was 55 mph, defendant wasin and rightlane,and onlyone vehicle passeddefendant whileofficerfollowed him. Thiswasthe holding despitethe officer'stestimony that he thoughtthe slow speedwas a signof intoxication. 2. SUFFICIENT THESE ON FACTS

Moreno State,124S.W.3d v. 339,(Tex.App.-Corpus 2003,no pet.). Christi Policeofficer'stestimonythat defendantwas driving25 mph in 45 mph zone, and that officer obserued trafficwas backedup behinddefendant's vehicledue to hisdrivingand heavyamount of traffic,in violationof statuteprohibitingdriversfrom drivingin a mannerso as to impedetraffic, providedofficer with probable causefo sfop vehicle. R. APPROACHINGVEHICLE A THATIS ALREADY STOPPED 1. E N C OU N T E R

Morris State,2011WL v. (Tex.App.-Fort 1743769 Worth2011). ldentifiedcitizencalledin to report defendant'serraticdrivingand followeddefendantas he drove home. Officer arrivedat thehome,pulled hisvehicle the driveway into with lights flashing, blocking defendant fromleaving.Officersaidhe exited hispatrolcar and eitherapproached defendant or requested defendant that approach and askeddefendant, him whoappeared be confused, had to slurredspeechand smelledof alcohol,if he had been driving.Defendant, who had keysin his hand,admittedthat he had been driving,had been at a bar in Fort Worth,and that he probably shouldnot havedrivenhome. Courtfoundthiswasa "voluntary encounter" addedthat even and if itwas not,thattheofficerwould havehadreasonable suspicion investigate to defendantfor DWI.

JU

Statev. Woodard, S.W.3d404(Tex.Crim.App. 1). 341 201 Respondingto a call about a car in a ditch and report that the driver was on foot, the officer on a hunchthat a pedestrian saw on footnearthe scenemightbe the driverled to him approaching he pedestrian questioning. Basedupon that encounter, officerdeveloped and engagingthe in the probable in causeto believethepedestrian/defendant theoperator the vehicle theditchand was of to arrest for DWl. Thedefenseobjected him and thattheofficerhadno legal basisforapproaching questioning defendant. TheCourtheld that an officerneedsnojustification a consensual the for encounter, whichtriggersno constitution protection al s. (Tex.App.-Fort Statev. Murphy, 2007WL 2405120 for Worth2007,no pet.)(notdesignated publication). Ihis caseinvolved defendant in a whoaccidentally downan embankment a drove hismotorcycle park after hours. The trialjudge grantedthe motionfo suppressfindingthere wasno reasonable suspicion probable or causefo sfopthe defendant.TheAppellate the Courtcharacterized officer's initialcontactwith the defendant whenhe helpedhim get hismotorcycle the embankment up as a consensual"encounter." ln overrulingthe trial judge, the Court found that this encounter escalatedinto an investigative that the detentionthat was supportedby reasonablesuspicion defendant was intoxi cate d. Statev. Brvant, S.W.3d 161 758(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2005, pet.). no Officer sawdefendantturn into the parkinglot of a stripshoppingcenter,drive towardthe rear of the buildings,turn around, stopbetweenthe buildings,and turn off hisheadlights. Officerdrove to wheredefendantwas parked,got out of hispatrol car, approached defendant's car, and the knockedon defendant's window. Defendant openedhiscar door. Officersmelleda strongodor of alcoholand noteddefendant had "something over the front of him"and that hiszipperwas all undone. After conductingan investigation, officer arrested defendantfor DWI. Trial Court suppressed stopfindingthe officerhad no legal basisto approachvehicle. Courtheld that the police officer was not requiredto have reasonablesuspicion that defendantwas engagedin criminalactivityto approachdefendant'scar and knock on his window. Court characterizes everything to the point where defendantopened his door as an "encounter'which not a up is seizurefor 4h Amendmentpurposes. 2. NOTAN ENCOUNTER

Statev. Carter,2A05WL2699219 (Tex.App.-Fort (Notdesignated for Worth2005,pdrrefused) publication). passenger vehiclethrowingup out passengersideof vehicleand decidedto Officerobserued in passenger's investigate medicalcondition. In response shiningof spotlighton defendant's to vehicle,the vehiclepulled over into parkinglot and stopped. The officer'sactivatingstrobelights and gettingout of hisvehicleand approaching vehicleon foot meantthe contactwas defendant's a detention and not an encounfer arguedby the Sfafe. as 31

3.

VEHICLE FROM APPROACHING DEFENDANT OF OUTSIDE ANDAWAY = ENCOUNTER

(Tex.Crim.App. Statev. Woodard,2011WL 1261320 2011). Defendant drovehiscar off the road,leftthe scene and whilewalkingdowntheroad encountered an officerwho askedhim if he had beeninvolved an accident and he saidhe had. Thiscontact in was culminated hisarrestforDWI. Defendant in and arguedthatthe initialencounter questioning an illegalseizurebut Courtheld thisinitialinteraction on betweenpoliceofficerand defendant a publicsidewalkwas a consensual the encounter that did not implicate FourthAmendment. S. BASISFOR PLATE OBSCURING PROVIDES STATE SLOGAN AND IMAGES STOP

v. State Johnson, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2007). 219 386 governing Policeofficerhadreasonable visibility of was violatingstatute suspicion defendant that justifiedin makingtrafficstop;dealer-installed licenseplates and thus was framefor TexasIicense plate on defendant'svehicleentirelycovered phrase"THE LONESTAR STATE"and probably coveredimagesof spaceshuttleand starrynight,andphraseand imageswereall originaldesign (20031. plate. V.T.C.A., elements license of Transportation Code$ 502.409(alfft(Bl T. DRIVERS LICENSE CHECKPOINT 1. UNREASONABLE

Statev. Luxon, S.W.3d440(Tex.App.-Eastland 230 2007, pet.). no Seizureof defendantat roadblockoperatedby police officersto check driver's /icensesuras unreasonable unfettered discretion undertheFourth Amendment;operationroadblockwasleftto of of officersgiven that they made decrsions to where, when, and how to operateroadblock, as conducted roadblockwithoutauthorization guidanceof a superuisory officer,and conducted or plan roadblock absence anydepartmental of policedepartment.Thusoperation roadblock in or of presented serious of abuse officers' greatlyondefendant's a nsk intruded of discretion, thereby and FourthAmendmentinterest beingfree from arbitraryand oppressive in searches and seizures. 2. REASONABLE

(Tex.App.-El (Notdesignated publication). Bohren State,2011 v. for WL3274039 Paso2011) Lujan State, v. 331S.W.3d 768(Tex.Crim.App.2011). Officers notrequired conduct license registration are and blinders ignoring to a and checkwearing any other violations the law that they observe,but can stillact on what they learn duringa of checkpointstop,even if that resu/fsin the arrestof the motoristfor an offenseunrelated the to purpose thecheckpoint. briefsuspicionless at a checkpoint constitutionally permissible of is A sfop 32

if itsprimarypurposeis to confirmdrivers'licenses registration not generalcrimecontrol. and and (Tex.App.-Austin Anderson State,2010 3370054 v. 2010). WL Therewas conflicting orpassed testimony whetherdefendant on consented beforehe fell asleep out at hospital. Trial Court'sfinding that defendantin fact consentedto the blood draw and although fell asleep he drawn,he neverwithdrewhis and was asleep whenthe bloodwasactually consent. The Courtof Appeals draw under Section foundit was alsoauthorized unconscious as 724.011. Settlemire State,323 S.W.3d520 (Tex.App.-FortWorth2010). v. breath Defendant's confrontation rights werenot violatedwhentrial courtadmittedinto evidence in fesfresu/fsand maintenance for breathtestingmachine, logs and technicalsuperuisor, charge records;although of machine timeof trial,testified at and sponsored resu/fsand maintenance fesf it supervisor who testifiedabout breath testingmachine'ssfafus did not superuise at time of mightbe relevantin defendant's intoxilyzer test,it wasnot the casethatanyonewhosetestimony establishing chainof custody, of authenticity sample,or accuracy testingdevice,had to appear of in personas part of the prosecutionb why itsholdingdid not violate case. In explaining Melendez-Diaz, points out, "This is precisely the type of analyst that the Supremecourt it The anticipated mightbe challenged basedon itsholdingin Melendez-Diaz." courtmade clear, governing admission however, it didnotintenditsholdingto "sweep rule the that awayan accepted of scientific evidence." U. VEHICLE STOPPED LIGHT AT

Klepper State, (Tex.App.-Fort v. 2009WL 384299 Worth2009,no pet.). The defendantwas stoppedat an intersectionpast the stopline. Texas Transportation Code requiresthe operatorof a vehiclefacingonly a steadyred signalfo sfop at a clearlymarkedstop (Vernon2008).Additionally, operator a line. TexasTransportation an of CodeAnn.6544.007(d) vehiclemay not stop,stand,or park in an intersection. ld. 6 545.302h)(31 Nernon 20081.The defendant arguedthat the officerfailedto articulate histestimony in that he believedthisto be a trafficviolation. The Courtof Appeals intentof the officermaking remindsus that the subjective the stopis ignored,and we look solelyto whetheran objectivebasis for the sfop exisfs. As it clearlydid in fhis case, the motion fo suppresswas properlydenied. V. PASSING IMPROVED ON SHOULDER

(Tex.Crim.App.2012). Lothrop State,2012 1605145 v. WL The solebasis for the sfop was that the defendantdrove on the improvedshoulderfo pass a vehiclethathad sloweddownin frontof him. Theofficerdid not testifythatthe drivingwasunsafe in any way but felt it violated 549.058(a)of the Transportation Code. The Court of Criminal Appeals or foundthat sinceit was not demonstrated the useof the shoulderwas dangerous that not necessary, conductper that statutewas not illegal. lnteresting note that the Courtg,ves the 33

as an exampleof what the officerin this situationmight say that might rebut the "necessary" wordingwas that the defendant couldhave safelypassedby usingthe lane usedby oncoming traffic. W. BELIEFAND OBJECTIVE FACTSCAN TRUMPOFFICER'S SUBJECTIVE SUPPORT STOP

pet. Kessler State,2010 1137047 (Tex.App.-Fort (Notdesignated v. WL for Worth201Q, ref'd.) publication). Officerobserued defendantabruptlyswervedto theleft to avoida curb,failedto drivethe car within a singlelane of traffic,and moved "themajorityof the vehicle"into a designated left-turnlane while continuingto drive straight. OfficerGoodmantestifiedthat based on his experience, narrowly avoiding curb with sucha quickmovement a and failingto remainin a singlelane weresrgnsof possib/eintoxication.He noticedthe drivingoccurredshortlyafter 2:00 a.m., when local bars closed,which alsosupportedthe stop. This was found to provideproper basis for stopeven thoughofficer'ssubjectivebelief that a traffic violationwas committedwas wrong. Reedv. State, 308S.W.3d 417(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2010). Even though trial court found the officer's belief that two traffic violationswere committedwas erroneous, officer stillhad reasonablesuspicion stopdefendant suspected the for DWI based to on the other reasons sfafedfor the stop;namely,he had suspected shemightbe intoxicated that basedon time of day, area of city that she had been comingfrom, and his experiencewith intoxicateddriversexhibitingsimilar characteristics driving. of Huqhes State. v. (Tex.App.-Fort 2008WL 4938278 Worth2008,pet.ref'd). The officertestifiedthat the traffic stopin this DWlcase was basedon hismistakensubjective belief that defendant had committeda traffic violation (failure to maintain a single lane). ln upholding stop,the Courtholdsthat the sfop vvas the and supported the officer'sobservation by testimony concerning specific he driving behavior thatwas consistent DWI. Specifically noted with the defendantwas drivingwell belowthe postedspeedlimit, slowerthan other vehicleson the roadway,and was on the road around2:00 a.m. when barsare closingand was havingtrouble maintaining singlelane of traffic. a Sinqleton State. S.W.3d v. 91 342(Tex.App.-Texarkana, 2002, reh.overruled). Officer'sbasis for stop was that the defendant squealedhis tires as he made a turn whichhe thoughtat the time was a traffic offensebut is not. Thoughhe testifiedhe did not stop the defendant drivingunsafely, did statethedefendant for he manner. This madetheturnin an unsafe washeldto be sufficient susfainthe stopeventhoughit wasnot the reason had articulated. to he

34

X.

FORSTOP BASIS REWINGENGINE FORWARD SUFFICIENT ANDLURCHING

pet. Foster State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin v: Rev'd CCA326S.W.3d by 297 2009, granted). 386 309(Tex.Crim.App. 2010). Defendant c/osefo the vehicle droveup to the officer'sunmarked vehicleand stoppedextremely at a traffic light. Officer then heard a rewing sound from defendant's engine and observed the defendant's truckmaketwofonuard on lurching movements based this,theofficerstopped and defendant investigation DWl. Giventhatnothingindicated defendant for wasout of control of that whenhe stopped thathe wasotherwise or the drivingrecklessly, Courtheldthat the officerdidnot have a reasonablesuspicion defendant had committed trafficviolation a and foundthe stop that shouldhave been suppressed. Court of Appealsappliedwrongstandard. Stopsupportedby reasonable suspicion. Y. THERE BUT OFFICER'S BELIEF STOPIS VALIDIF NO TRAFFIG OFFENSE WASA TRAFFIC IS OFFENSE REASONABLE

Meadows State,356 S.W.3d33 (Tex.App.-Texarkana v. 2011). Officer objectively had was reasonable stopping suspicion roadtraversed defendantwithout that by privatedrive,suchthatdefendant's failureto stopconstituted trafficoffense.Thiswastrue despite conflictingevidenceas to public or privatenatureof road. Theofficer'ssuspicionwasreasonable in spiteof the briefintervalduringwhichofficerwas out of visualcontactwithdefendant's vehicle as fhis time was not long enoughfor defendant have stoppedand thenstartedmovingagain. to The Courtof Appeals remindsus that the standardof proof for the existence trafficoffenseis of preponderance the evidence, beyonda reasonable of not doubt. Mahaffey State, 2 WL 1414108 (Tex. m. App. v. 201 2AQ). Cri Officerstopped indicating defendant based hisbeliefthatwheretherewasa signon thefreeway on drivers should merge left, the driver is supposed to turn on his signal. The Court of Criminal Appealsreversedthe Court of Appeals' findingthat his failurefo use turn signal was a traffic violation holdingit wasnot. Onremandthe Courtof Appealsupheldthe stopeventhoughthe by basiswaswrong,findingit wasreasonable for of basedon the language the statute the officerto believewhat he observedwas a traffic violation. The Court of CriminalAppealsonce again acceptedPDRon fhrscaseandreversedthe Courtof Appeals againholdingthat no turnsignalis requiredwhentwo lanesbecomeone. Z. DRIVING WITHOUT CENTER STRIPE LEFT CENTER UNDIVIDED OF ROAD ON

State Evans,2010 1255819 v. (Tex.App.-Texarkana WL 2010). Officersaw the defendant drivingleft of centerof the roadwayfor an eighthto a quarterof a mile, and the road wasan undivided, two-lane road withouta center stripe. Therewas no othertraffic on the road and said obseruation resultedin traffic stop. Trial Court focusingon the lack of 35

evidence that it was unsafefor defendant drivein that mannergranteda motionfo suppress. to TheAppettate Courtreversedholdingtherewas reasonable suspicion a trafficviolationwas that in progress that none of the statutoryexceptions the requirement driveon the right half and to to roadwaywere applicable. of the VII. PORTABLE ALCOHOL SENSOR DEVIGES

pet.ref'd) (notdesignated (Tex.App.-San Fowler State. v. for 2007WL 2315971 2007, Antonio publication). Fernandez State, v. no 915S.W.2d Antonio 1996, pet.). 572(Tex.App.-San Courtrejected was because argument evidence the 'passrve that of alcoholsensor" not admissible purposeof it was not certifiedon the basisthat the devicewas not takingsamplesfor the determining alcoholconcentration wasrathergivenas one of severalDWI FSTtests,and the but devicemerelyshows presence alcohol.Qualitative the of scoregivenby devicewasnot admifted. VIII. WARRANTLESS ARREST DWISUSPECT. NOTVIEWED OFFENSE A. BASED PUBLIC ON INTOXICATION THEORY

Pointer State, (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 2011Wl 2163721 2011). (Tex.App,-Austin (Notdesignated publication). Ooden State, v. for 2004 W1314916 no 2004, pet.) Chilman State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston v. 22 Dist]2000,pet.ref'd.). 50 [14th Mathieu State,992 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1999, pet.). no S.W.2d725 [1't (Tex.App.-Austin pet.ref'd). Porter State, v. 969S.W.2d 60 1998, Jones State, v. 949S.W.2d no 509(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, pet.h.). pet.ref'd). Revnolds State, v. 902S.W.2d 558(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1995, [1st pet.ref'd). Sequra State, v. 826S.W.2d178(Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, Carrasco State,712S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 120 1986). Warrick State, (Tex.Crim.App. v. 634S.W.2d 707,709 1982). Flecher State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 298 581 1957). In accidentcasewhereofficerdid not see fhe defendant drivinghiscar, the officermay stillmake pursuantto Article 14.01of the TexasCodeof Criminal a warrantless arresfof the DWI suspect Procedureunder the authorityof the public intoxicationstatute. B. BASED "BREACH PEAGE" ON OF THEORY

Gallups State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 151 196 2004). Kunkel State, S.W.3d v. 46 March 8,2001,pet.ref'd). 328(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th pet.ref'd). Lopez State, v. 936S.W.2d 1996, 332(Tex.App.-San Antonio Romo State,577 v. S.W.2d 251(Tex.Crim.App. 1979).

36

C.

BASED "SUSPICIOUS ON PLACE'' THEORY 1. FRONT YARD

Statev. Parson, S.W.2d no 988 264(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pet.). place." Defendant whosevehiclewasstoppedin frontyard = Suspicious 2. PARKING LOT

pet Coooer State, v. 961S.W.2d 229(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.l1997, ref'd). 1't Officerarrivedat sceneof accident(inparkinglot) and neversaw suspectdrivinghisvehiclebut determined suspecfwasinvolved accident.Courthelddetention in and arrestwereproperholding that it was reasonablefor the officer to concludethat the parking lot, in front of a bar, in the wee hours of the morning,with bleedingpeople walkingaround wrecked cars and where suspect = appeared intoxicated Suspicious Place. 3. HOSPITAL

Dvarv. State,125 S.W.3d 460(Tex.Crim.App., 24,2003). April Defendantwas involvedin a one car accidentand was transported a hospital wherehe was to visited an officerinvestigating accident.Theofficernotedthefollowing: visible by a headinjury, the partyingwithfriends,odorof alcoholic speechslurred,admission Defendant he had been by that beverage, defendant under21yearsof age. PlacedDefendant underarrest and afterreadinghim the DIC-24Defendant agreedto give a bloodspecimen./ssueon appealwaswhetherthis was place?" Courtholdsthata hospital a validwarrantless arrestand coulda hospital a "stJspicious be place,underthetotality thecircumstancesrelied in fhiscase. canbe,and wasa suspicious upon of 4. THEDEFENDANT'S HOME

LeCourias State, v. 341S.W.3d 483(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2011). [14 ln holdingthe warranfless arresfof the defendant wasproper,the Courtheldthat the areain front place"because officer of thehomewhereappellantwas reasonably arrested wasa 'Susplbious the provided citizen couldbelieve,based information and on by thatdefendant drovewhileintoxicated, it was necessary takepromptactionto ascertain to level. blood-alcohol appellant's Gallups State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 151 196 2004). Defendant's warrantless (DWI)wasnot illegal. The arresfrn hishomefor drivingwhileintoxicated evidenceshowedthe defendantwalkedto his home after abandoning wreckedtruck following accidentshort distance away. The home underfhese circumstances consfituted Suspicious a place,"whenthe policeofficerwhoresponded noticedthat defendantwasbleedingfrom mouth. 31

Ihese circumstances a/so gave police officer reasonto believethat defendanthad committed "breach thepeace." of 5. ACCIDENT SCENE

Statev. Rudd. 255 S.W.3d 293(Tex.App.-Waco 2008,pet.ref'd). Contrary TrialCourt's to to findings, officerdidnot needto haveevenreasonable suspicion talk the guesfionsabout the accident.ln determining with defendantat the accident sceneand ask reasonablesuspicion, fact that an officer doesnot personallyobservedefendantoperating the providesin motor vehicleis irrelevantas Article 14.03(d(1)of the Codeof CriminalProcedure pertinent part thatan officermay arrest person placeundercircumsfances a foundin a suspicious reasonably showingthat he commifted violation any of the intoxication offenses. The Court a of foundthat the Court'sexcludingHGNbecausefhe officerdid not videotape testingwas within the its discretionand upheldthat ruling. D. NEEDNOTACTUALLY INTOXICATION WITHPUBLIC CHARGE SUSPECT

Peddcord State,942S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo no pet.). v. 100 1997, Warrick State, S.W.2d707,709 (Tex.Crim.App. v. 634 1982). Thereis no requirement the officeractually charge that on arrestthe defendant publicintoxication for the Sfafefo takeadvantage the abovementioned of theory. E. IMPLIED CONSENT LAWSTILL APPLIES

Chilman State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston v. 22 50 [14thDist]2000,pet.ref'd.). Arnold State,971 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 588 1998, pet.). no pet.ref'd). Elliot State, v. 908S.W.2d 590(Tex.App.-Austin 1995, Whileofficerdid not observethe defendant arresf and madea warrantless drivinga motorvehicle pursuant Article14.01of the TexasCodeof Criminal for DWI to Procedure undertheauthority and of thepublicintoxication fo statute,the impliedconsent was stillapplicable it applies person law as arrested any offensearisingout of the operation a motorvehiclewhileintoxicated is not for and of limitedfo arresfsfor the offenseof DWl. fsee Secflon724.011(a) the Transportation Code.] of

tx.

VIDEO A. PARTS PREDICATE OF CANBE INFERRED

Rovv. State, 608S.W.2d 645(Tex.Crim.App. op.]1980). [panel pet.ref'd). Simsv. State, 735S.W.2d 913(Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, properly be inferred Thatmachine was operating fromevidence testimony and supporting can predicate comefrom non-operator. can 38

B.

NEWPREDICATE REPLACES EDWARDS

Leosv. State,883S.W.2d 209(Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Rule901 of Rulesof CriminalEvidencecontrolson issue of properpredicatefor admission of videotapes. C. OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS

Clarkv. State,728 on S.W.2d484(Tex.App.-Fort Worth vacated remanded othergrounds, and , 753S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 371 Worth1989, 1987), remand S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 781 954 on no pet.). Holland State 622S.W.2d904(Tex.App.-Fort v. Worth1981 no pet.). , , No specialtrainingon use of videoequipment necessary operatorhas basic knowledge of is if proceduresor instructions. operating Dr SUPPRESSIBLE ITEMS 1. INVOCATION RIGHT COUNSEL OF TO

Oopv. State, S.W.3d 36 158(Tex.App.-Houston 2000,pet.ref'd). [1"tDist.] Gravv. State, 986S.W.2d814(Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999, pet.). no Lovv. State, 982S.W.2d 616(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 1998, pet.). no [1't Hardie State,807 v. (Tex.Crim.App. pet.ref'd)butsee Griffith State,55 v. S.W.2d319 1991, S.W.3d 598(Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Jury should not have been allowed to hear defendant's invocationof his right to counselon videotape. Kalisz State, S.W.3d718 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 32 2000,pet.ref'd). [14th pet.ref'd). Dumas State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 812 611 1991, Improper jury to be allowedto hear officergive defendanthisMirandawarnings for and askhim if he wantedto waive hisrights. Turning refusalcouldlead down volumeto excludedefendant's jury to conclusion did in fact invoke hisrights. he 2. INVOCATION RIGHT TERMINATE INTERVIEW OF TO

Cooperv. (Tex.App.-Houston no pet.). State,961 S.W.2d229 1997, Court of Appealsfound that the questionof "whereis he" upon being told about hisright to an attorneydid not constitute invocation hisright to an attorney. Courtfurtherheld that the an of "l'm defendant's subsequent statement, notanswering questions"was invocation hisright an of any 39

shouldnot havebeenheard of to terminate interuiew.This,likethe invocation rightto counsel, the 319 Tex.Crim.App. v. 807 by thejury andreversed case. CourtreliedonHardie State, S.W.2d the pet. 1991, refd). . 3. TO EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES!E OBJECTED

pet.ref'd). 1988, Johnson State,747 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 451 [14th Extraneousoffenses mentioned defendant policeon tapemustbe objectedto at timetape by or is offeredor no error is preserved. E. NOTSUPPRESSIBLE 1. AUDIO FST'S OF

v. 795 171(Tex.Crim.App. 1990). Jones State, S.W.2d performfhe sobriefyfesfs policerequesfsfhaf suspects Evenafter invocationof Mirandarights, neitherdo on and directions how suspecfs to do the fesfs do not constitute"interrogation;" are queriesconcerning fhese herrights. lf thepolicelimitthemselvesto asuspecf's understandingof sorfsof guesfions, they are not "interrogating" DWlsuspecf. a 1990, pet.). no v. 792 State Davis, S.W.2d751(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th pet. 1991, ref'd). v. Dawkins State. S.W.2d 668,671(Tex.App.-Waco, 822 110L.Ed.2d (1990). 528 v. PennsylvaniaMuniz, U.S.582,110 Ct 2638, 496 S. performance of Audioportionof videoneednotbe turnedoff afterinvocation rightsas theyconcern incident arrestandcustody to is of sobriety fesfsso longas policequestioning of the typenormally and is not reasonably likelyto elicittestimony. no (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 1999, pet.). Mathieu State,992 v. S.W.2d725 [1't An officer'srequestfhaf suspectperformsobrietyfesfs and directionson how to do the fesfs do of not constitute a interrogation, do queriesconcerning suspecf'sunderstanding his rights. nor 2. FSTREFUSAL

1994, (Tex.App.-Texarkana pet.ref'd). Rafaelli State,881 v. S.W.2d714 pet. (Tex.App.-Waco, 1991, ref'd) Dawkins State.822 v. S.W.2d 668,671 pet. atf'd 1987, granted) 790S.W. Christi, Barraza State. v. 733S.W.2d379(Tex.App.-Corpus 2d 654(Tex.Crim.App.June1990) 20, Jury is allowedto hear defendant's refusalto performthe field sobrietyfesfs on the video. No jury to hearaboutrefusalfo do FSIs or BIRs. distinction betweenallowing 40

3.

SUPPRESSED VIDEO AFTER AUDIO PORTION

no Fierro State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 1998, pet.). 969 51 (Tex.Crim.App. Huffman State,746 v. 1988). S.W.2d212 withoutsound. So /ongas visual portions trueand correct,the videois admrssible are 4. DURING REFUSAL BT TO INVOCATION RIGHT COUNSEL OF

(Not (Tex.App.-Fort Worth,June5,2003, pet.ref'd.) v. Strinoer State, 2003WL21283181 for designated publication). v. 2001). Griffith State, S.W.3d 55 598(Tex.Crim.App. (Tex.App.-Fort Halbrook State, S.W.3d v. Worth2000,pet.ref'd.). 31 301 pet.ref'd). Ex ParteJamail, S.W.2d 904 862(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1995, [1st Refusalto take breath test coupledwith and basedupon requesffo consultan attorney is admissible 5. DIDNOTRECORD IF EVEN AUDIO VIDEO PORTION ADMISSIBLE

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2007,no pet.). Akinsv. State,2007 1847378 WL [14th v. Burke State, 930S.W.2d 230(Tex.App.-Houston [14thDist.]1996petref'd). Videoisadmisslble longas predicatefor introduction photo is met. of so 6. FIELD ARENON.TESTIMONIAL SOBRIETY TESTS

1991 pet.ref'd). Townsend State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 813 181 , [14th that A TheFifthAmendmentprotects communications. compulsion makesan against testimonial a accused source real or physical of evidencedoesnot violatethe FifthAmendment. Evidence person's is suchas a voice.demeanor, phvsicalcharacteristics outsidethe scopeof protection or name.address. defendant's officerregarding aqainstselfincrimination.Queriesby the custodial normally are heiqht.weioht. placeof emplovment. phvsicaldisabilities the type of questions or interrogation underthe FifthAmendment. attendantto arrestand custodvand do not constitute do in Visualdepictions a sobriefyfesf are not testimonial natureand therefore not offendthe of federalor the stateprivilegeagainstself-incrimination. ;. & vERBALFST,s/ALpHABET couNTrNGARE No't TESTIMoNIAL

1997). Gassawav State, v. 957S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 48 in A recitation the alphabet are of and counting backwards not testimonial naturebecausefhese physicalevidenceof the functioningof appellant'smental and physical communications are
4L

faculties. Theperformance thesesobrietyfesfsshowsthe condition a suspecfbbody. This of of overrules Vickers State,878 S.W.2d329(Tex.App.-FortWorth 1994,pet.ref'd). v. 8. . INVOKED RIGHT COUNSEL MUSTBE CLEARLY TO

pet.ref'd.). Halbrook State, S.W.3d v. 31 301(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000, pet.refd, percuriam, Granberry State, v. 745S.W.zd (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1987) 34 [14th 758S.W.2d 284(Tex.Crim.App. 1988). Defendant's request requesffo makephonecallto "findout"who hisattorney doesnof constitute rs for attorney.No violation rightto counsel interuiew who hassoughtto terminate of whendefendant performrng is videotaped FSIs. 9. INVOKED RIGHT REMAIN TO MAYNOTBE SELECTIVELY SILENT

(Not pdr (Tex.App.-Fort Anderson State. v. 2006 744272 WL Worth 2006, dismissed) designated publication). for After receivingMiranda warningson the DWI videotape,the defendantansweredguesfions selectively-so/rne answeredand some he refused to answer. He did not terminatethe he interuiew.Thedefense to arguedthejury shouldnot havebeenallowed hearhimrefuseto answer guesfibns. The Court hetd that while it is clear that the prosecutioncannot use a certain post-arrest invoke defendant's may not selectively silence impeach to him at histrial,an accused hisright to remain silent. Therefore, TrialCourtdid not abuse its discretion admitting the by the portionof the videotape whichappellant whileanswering in refusedto answerspecificguesfions others. F. ABSENCE VIDEOTAPE OF 1. NOTGROUNDS FORACQUITTAL

Williams State, v. 946S.W.2d 1997, pet.). no 886(Tex.App.-Waco lrionv. State, 703S.W.2d 1986, pet.). no 362(Tex.App.-Austin Absence videotape DWlcase is not groundsfor acquittal. of in 2. DESTRUCTION TAPEIN BADFAITH UNLESS OF

pet.ref'd). Gamboa State,774 v. Worth1989, S.W.2d111(Tex.App.-Fort To supportmotion fo dr'smiss based on destructionof video, said destructionmust be shown to havebeenin'bad faith."

A'

3.

TO FOR NOJURYINSTRUCTION FAILURE TAPE

pdr (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 1995) ref'd(Notdesignated Platero State, v. 1995 144565 WL [14th for publication). 1988, pet.). no Logan State,757S.W.2d v. 160(Tex.App.-San Antonio Nojury instructionon sfafe's failure to videotapedefendant. (Tex.App.-Eastland, Manor State, v. 2006WL2692873 2006,no pet.). instruction. Wherethe DWI videotape not to wasmrssrng, defendantwas entitled a "spoilation" the A defendantin a criminalprosecutionis not entitledto a spoilationinstructionwhere there is no showingthat the evidence was exculpatory that therewas bad faithon the part of the Statein or connectionwifh ifs /oss. G. SURREPTITIOUS RECORDINGS AUDIO '1. PRE.ARREST

Wallace State , 707 S.W.2d928 (Tex. App.-Texarkana1986),affd, 782 S.W.2d854 v. (Tex.Crim.App. 1989). Surreptitiously as obtainedaudiorecordingsare admissibleevidenceon pre-arrestsituations /ong as no incriminating questions are askedwithoutbenefitof Mirandawarnings. 2. POST-ARREST

Mever State, S.W.3d v. 78 505(Tex.App.-Austin 2002,pet.ref'd). Afterarresting defendant DWl, he wasplacedin the backof thepatrolunitand thenofficer the for wentto searchdefendant's As defendant in thepatrolunitwithdoorsclosedand windows car. sat shut,he madeoral statements of equipment. Details the that wererecordedby the videotaping comments werenot disclosed tirade in otherthanbeingcharacterized the briefas an "acrimonious profanely blaminghiswifeand the twoofficers hisplight." Courtholdstherewasno reasonable for expectation privacyin the patrolcar and hotdsstatement be admissibte. of to H. DEFENSE RIGHT VIEWTAPEBEFORE TRIAL TO

Durhan State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Beaumont no pet.). v. 710 176 1986, Defendant and/orattorney haveright to viewDWI videopriorto trial.Failureto viewwon'tprevent tape'sbeingadmittedinto evidence.

43

101 v. 1980), cert. denied, S. Ct.256.(1980). 592 933 Quinones State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. DWI videofapes discoverable. are I. TAPEMADEIN FOREIGN LANGUAGE

Lealv. State 782S.W.2d 844(Tex.Crim.App. 1989). , Whentapeis in foreignlanguage, translation a sworninterpreterisnecessary. a by J. PROVIDING DEFENDANT WITHCOPYOF DWIVIDEOTAPE 1. "ACCESS" NEED DEFENDANT ONLYBE GIVEN

Lanev. State, 1996). 933S.W.2d 504(Tex.Crim.App. before Held Rule38.22 that saysSfafemusfprovidea trueand correctcopyof tapeto the defense to the 20th day beforethe date of the proceeding safisfiedif the tape is "madeavailable" the is defense. 2. UNLESSTHERE IS ACCESSTO THE TAPE IS NOT REQUIRED ,.CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION''

58 Mannv. State,13 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin othergrounds S.W.3d132 2000,Affirmed 89 2001 [Tex.Crim.App. ]). interrogation offeredon the DWI Wherethere were no oral statements resultingfrom custodial no videotapes, rule that saidfapes mustbe providedto defense later than the 2dhday before the the trial doesnot apply. K. = NOSOUND NO PROBLEM

pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Houston Aquirre State, v. 948S.W.2d377 [14thDist.]1997, Absence sound DWtvideowill not affectits admissibitity. of on L. MOBILE VIDEO CAMERA TAPEADMISSIBLE

1990, pet.). no Poulos State, v. 799S.W.2d 769(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [1st Thefield sobrietyfesf urasvideotaped the officerfrom a cameramountedon hisdashboard. by This videotape u/asnot testimonial natureand thereforedid not offendthe FifthAmendment in privilege.
44

M.

DEFENDANT'S COPY STATE MAYSUBPOENA/OFFER

Adams State, v. 1998, pet.). no 969S.W.2d106(Tex.App.-Dallas after copy had Wherethe Stateor policeinadvertently destroyed sfafe'scopy of DWI videotape it defendant's copyand introduce beenmadefor defendant, wasproperfor Stateto subpoena it into evidence. N. LOSING VIDEOTAPE BETWEEN TRIALAND APPEALDOESNOTREQUIRE NEWTRIAL

pet.ref'd). Yatesv. State,1 S.W.3d 277(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1999, trial a Thefactthata videotapeis befwe triat and appeat notconclusive to whether new as /osf is en is granted. lf the issueon appealis intoxication, videoneedsto be closein time to drivingto the merit a reversal. O. PROBLEM OTHER BEING VISIBLE DWITAPE ON OF STOPS

for (Tex.App.-Fort no Hackett State, v. Worth 2003, pet.)(Notdesignated 2003WL 21810964 , publication). The defenseobjectedwhen it discovered,while the jury was deliberating, that the DWI tape admittedinto evidence and beingviewedby thejury had othersfopson ff Thetrialcourtdid not allowthe defendant examinethejurors fo see if watching tape of the othersfops affected the to them. The Courtfoundthere wasno error because defendant not show that thejurors' did the instructed themnot viewing ofhersfops harmedthedefendant because judgehadproperly the and portionsof the tape. to considerfhoseextraneous PRACTICE NOTE: lf your tape hasextraneous sfopson it, editthemout of the tapebeforeyou offerit into evidence. P. WITHOUTOPERATOR'S VIDEO PART OF TAPE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY

(Tex.App.-Fort Reavis State, S.W.3d716 v. no Worth,2002, pet.). 84 Paqev. State, 125S.W.3d 640(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2003,pet.ref'd). [1't Ihese casesdiscussthe wayyou canadmita videotape evenif you don'thavethe officer/witness who wasin the room with the defendant. Theauthorityfor admitting leastthe video at available part of the tape fallsunderwhatthe federalcourtshave calledthe "silentwitness" rule. Thekey juror to conclude the videotape is whetherthereis sufficient that evidence enablea reasonable to is what the Stateclaimedit to be. A showingof how the tape is loaded,that the machinewas workingshouldsuffice. Bofh casescitedaboveinvolveda storesecurityvideo.

45

pdr (Notdesignated for (Tex.App.-Fort Worth2005, ref'd) v. 2005WL3244272 Johnson State, publication). of providedthe only basis for the traffic stopand officer/operator the tape was In-carvideotape to unavailable testifyas he had beenkilledby a drunkdriversubsequent this arrest.Courtheld to proofthat the stopof the defendant's wassufficient the tapealone,withoutthe officer's testimony, car wasproper. O. NOTA PROBLEM VOICES INABILIryTO ID ALL BACKGROUND

no v. Jones State, S.W.3d 80 686(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2002, pet.). [1't Predicate admittingvideois under Rule901 of the TexasRulesof Evidence.Nothingin that for by rule requiresthat everyvoiceon the tapebe identified name. pet.ref'd). Allenv. State, 849S.W.2d 838(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1993, [1"t Thisopinionappliedthe old standardfrom the Edwardscase fesf for tape admissibilityand held background doesnot include be thatevenunderthat test,therequirement speakers identified that voices. 1990, reh.overruled). Garza State, v. 794S.W.2d Christi 530(Tex.App.-Corpus voicesas UnderEdwardstest, it was sufficientthat officerwas able to identifythe background officers,even thoughthe officerscouldnot be named. R. OF OFFICER'S NARRATIVE PERFORMANCE FST'S ON 1. CUMULATIVE

(Tex.App.Houston Dist.] 2006,pdrref'd). Evans State, v. 2006WL 1594000 [14th In this casethe defendant of objectedto admissibility the audioportionof the DWI tape because performance theFSIs. Because on of theofficer's verbalnarrative conclusrbns aboutdefendant's the on thejury had alreadyheardthe officer describe same matters directwithoutobjection, the reversal. tapedcomments weremerelycumulative and did not require 2. INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY

Fischer State, v. 252S.W.3d 375(Tex.Crim.App.2008). where the At a Motionfo Suppress hearing, defendant soughtfo suppress soundon the videotape the officer'srecordedcomme,ntary what was occurringduringtraffic stopand wherethe officer of
46

of dictatedon videotapehis obseruations DWI suspecf. The trial Court deniedthe Motionto reiectedfhe Sfafe's plead nolo and appealed. The Courtof Appeals Suppress; defendant the and senseimpression" heldthat the were admissrb/e "present as argument that thesestatements reportofferedfor truthof matterasserted, comments weretheequivalent policereportor offense to hearsay,and the case wasreversedand remanded. and thus, inadmissible X. IN.COURT DEMONSTRATIONS/EXHIBITS A. FIELDSOBRIETY TESTS

pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Houston Baker State, v. 879S.W.2d218 [14thDist]1994, his to Courtproperlyrefused allowdefendant demonstrate abilityto performFSIs in court as to no predicafewas laid as to reliabilityor probativevalue of saiddemonstration. B. S ME L L T E S T

pet. Christi1996, ref'd). Lewis State, v. 172(Tex.App.-Corpus 933S.W.2d beer to explain odor officers Defendantclaimedbeer he was consumingwas non-alcoholic whereofficers to counselwanted do experiment detectedon hisbreathat time of stop. Defense in front of thejury wouldbe askedto judge whichof 9 cupshad alcoholicand whichhad nondifferedfrom fhose alcoholicbeer. Testwasproperlydisallowedas conditionsof fesf substantially existingat time of the stop. C. S ME L L & T A S T E T E ST

pet. 1996, ref'd). Kaldis State, S.W.2d771(Tex.App.-Houston Dist] v. 926 [1st mixturessoiurors would Defense requestthatjurors be allowedto smelland tastenon-alcoholic was possrbte non-alcoholic beverages like alcoholic for mixturesto smelland taste seethat ft is properlydenied. D. INADMISSIBLE OF CHART SYMPTOMS INTOXICATION OF

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1999, pet.). no Markey State, v. 996S.W.2d226 [14th ln jury trial, chart on whichofficer listedsymptomsof intoxicationobseruedin that case was found into to be a properdemonstrative but shouldnot havebeenadmifted evidence.Errorin doing aid, so foundto be harmless.

41

E.

CHART SYMPTOMS INTOXICATION-DEMONSTRATIVE OF EVIDENCE OF

Baker State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 177 113 2005, pet.). no [1't TheCourtheld that a fill-in-the-blank the chartthat covereds/gnsof intoxication officerobserved was admissible demonstrative prosecutorfilled in the blanksas fhe officer as evidence. The testified. Thefact that the chartmightcontaininformation similarto thatin thepolicereportdoes not renderit inadmissible a demonstrative as aid. F. DEMONSTRATION DEFENDANT'S OF SPEECH

Williams State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 116 788 1, October 2003). Torebut the evidence that defendant's speechwasslurreddue to alcohol,hisattorneysoughtto have his client provide a voice exemplarbefore the jury, but wanted to do so withoutbeing properly prohibited subjected crossexamination. Courtof Appeals to The foundthatthe TrialCourt this holdingthat other means of showingthe same thing were availableand that to allow the defendantfo do so withoutbeing exposedfo cross examination risks great potentialprejudiceto the State and risksmisleading jury. TheCourtof Criminal Appeals reversed findingthata voice the exemplar not testimonial is whether is offeredby the State theDefense. is physical it lt evidence. or G. ERROR TO ALLOW BOTTLE OF VODKA TO BE ADMITTED AS DEMONSTRATIVE DENCE EVI

Orrick State, S.W.3d v. 36 622 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000,no pet.). Sfafewasallowedto offera full unopened in boftleof vodkaas demonstrative evidence thisDWI casewherea bottleof vodkawasfoundin defendant's at the time of the arrest. ln holdingit car waserror,albeit harmless, allowthe Statefo do so the Courtfoundthat whenan objectthatis to substituted the originalusedin the commission a crimeis not an exactreplicaand differs for in of itsdistinguishing will characteristics, probativevalueof that objectas demonstrative the evidence be very slight. xl. (OptNtON oNE wtTNESS SUFFTCTENT TEST|MONY)

Dumas State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. pet. 812 611 1991, ref'd). Valles State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-El v. 817 138 Paso1991, pet.). no lrionv. State, 703S.W.2d 362(Tex.App.-Austin 1986, pet.). no Testimony arresting of officeralone = sufficient convictDWl. to

48

XII.

IMPEACHING POLICE OFFICER A. FINANCIAL MOTIVE

Castillo State, v. 939S.W.2 d754(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1997pet.ref'd). [14th Defense wantedto offerintoevidence aggregate, incomeearnedby arresting the annualovertime officerby testifyingin court. Courtheld that thoughrelevant,suchtestimonywasproperlyexcluded holding"(the)decisionto make allegedly'marginal'arresfs foo attenuated from any potential is gainsto overcome riskof confusion the rssuegembarrassment, financial harassment, the and of unduedelay."Courtdidallowinquiryintoamountearnedfor testifying that caseand hisper hour in wage. B. QUOTAS

Alexander State, v. 949S.W.2 772(Tex.App.-Dallas , pet.ref'd). d 1gg7 Reversible errorin fhis caseto not allowdefensefo cross-examine arresting the officerregarding quotasfor DWlarresfs that was in place at the time of the a departmental directiveestablishing defendant's arrest. C. EMPLOYMENT DISCIPLINARY AND HISTORY

Deleonv. State,2006 WL 1063765 (Tex.App.-Dallas for 2006, no pet.) (Not designated publication). ln this case,the defensesoughtfo crossexaminethe officeron hisemployment disciplinary and history. Specifically,the defensecounselsought to questionthe officerregarding(1) an off-duty incidentin which he pursuedvandals;(2) a reprimandhe receivedfor missedcourt dates;(3) plan"from officer's statements a "development in personnel recordthat someof his reportswere hastily written; and (4) the circumsfancessurrounding his resignation from another police department more than ten years beforethe trial. Held the TrialCourtproperlyexcludedfhe crossexamination theserssues defense on as failedto showtherelevance thesematters the merits to of of the case or to any defensivestrategy. XIII. IMPEACHING DEFENDANT BONDFORFEITURE AND EVIDENCE A. PROPER

Ochoa State, v. 481S.W.2d847(Tex.Crim.App. 1972). Wherewitnessmakes blanketstatements concerning exemplary his conduct suchashavingnever beenarrested, charged, convicted any offense, havingneverbeen "introuble" purports or or of or to detail hisconvictions (i.e. "opensthe door'). This leavingthe impression thereare no others, falseimpression may be corrected crossby directingwifnessto the bad acts,convictions, in etc. eventhoughsardacfs may not otherwise propersubjectfor impeachment. be
AO

pet.ref'd). Stanbero State, v. 989S.W.2d 847(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, Wheredefendanton stationhousevideotape made the statementhe doesnot drink alcoholic beverages, wasproperto elicittestimony it drink fromarresting officerthathe had seendefendant alcoholic beverages a prior occasion. Voucher on Ruleis no longerthe rule in Texas. B. IMPROPER

pet.ref'd). Lewis State, v. 933S.W.2d 172(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, Defendant statement directthathe'lvill not drinkand drive"didnot amounttoan assertion that on he had neverdrankand drivenand did not openthe door to hisimpeachment a prior DWI with conviction.Butthe Courtfoundthatthe mentionof the tenyear old DWI conviction was harmless error in fhis case. Hammett State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 713 102 1986). Testimony direct that the defendant on had only been arrestedon one prior occasionfor public intoxication not leave the false impressiotn he had never been arrestedfor any other did that offense didnot openthe doorto hisimpeachment a conviction criminal and for mischief.Case with reversedon thisbasisfor determination harmfulness the error. of of C. EVIDENCE BONDFORFEITURE OF ADMISSIBLE

Pratte State, v. (Tex,App.-Austin 2008WL5423193 2008,no pet.). ln this casethe defendant was chargedin lg98 but was not rearrested and tried until 2008. The Sfafe, over objection,offeredevidencethat the defendantfailed to appearand had his bond phase the trial. TheCourtheldthatthe forfeiture an accused's forfeited theguilt-innocence in of of bail bond may be provedas tendingto show flight which,in the contextof bail-jumping, may be construed evidenceof guilt. For that reason evidenceof the defendant's as failureto appearin 1999and that hisbond wasforfeitedwasrelevantand admissible evidence hisguilt. as of XIV. STATEMENTS DEFENDANT BY A. PRE-ARREST STATEMENTS 1. A D MIS S IB L E

Warren State 2011WL 4036139 pet.filed). v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2011, , [1 Courtheldthat it wasnot errorto admitthe followingstatements defendant madeat the scene by uponinitialcontactwithdefendant thebasisthathe wasnot Mirandized were on beforestatements made. 50

1) Deputyaskeddefendant how he had come to knowaboutthe crash,and defendant responded that he drove histruckinto the ditch. 2) Deputyaskeddefendantwhere wascomingfrom,and defendant responded he that he wascomingfrom hishomeon Cypresswood. what his Deputythen askeddefendant intended was destination was,and defendant responded that hisdestination his home. 3) Deputyaskeddefendantforhisdriver'slicense.Defendant fumbling started throughhis wallet,dropping businesscardsout of it. Defendant thenlookedback up and asked deputywhathe had just askedhim for. 4) Deputyaskeddefendant he had beendrinking if responded he had that and defendant "drunksome." When askedhow many,defendant referredto it "as a few." 5) Whiledeputywas talkingto him, the defendant demanded that deputycall a person identified J.R. who he asserfedwasa deputywith the sheriff's as department. Priorto administering fieldsobrietytest,deputyaskeddefendant 6) aboutany the problems mighthave. Defendant medications urastakingor physical he saidhe was he not takingany type of medications indicated and that he did not have anyphysical problemsor difficulties. patrolcar for the fieldsobrietytest,defendant 7) Whenhe got outof deputy's wasunsteady on hisfeet and askedrepeatedly whathe wasbeingchargedwith. 8) At the time defendant was askingwhathe was beingchargedwith,he told deputythat provethathe wasdrivingthe truck. Defendant deputycouldn't thentold deputy,"l beat one of thesealready." Davidson State,2010 WL 118776(Tex.App.-Dallas v. for 2010,no pet.) (Not designated publication). After theofficer administered field sobrietyfesfs, askedthedefendant he thoughtthathe if the he shouldbe drivingand askedif the defendant werein wouldhavebeendrivingif hisgrandchildren "no"to bothguesfions. thecar. Defendant were answered Defendant arguedthatsuch statements inadmissible custodial interrogation, Courtheldhe failedto identify factsof theincident that but any would objectively show that the officermanifested existence probablecauseor intent to of the arresthim at the time he answeredthe guesfions. Therefore,questions and answerswere admissible. Frohv. State, 2006 WL 1281086 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth,2006. May 11,2006,no pet.)(Not designated publication). for Afterstopping defendant a trafficviolation smelling odorof alcohol, officerasked the for an the and "at the defendant how muchhe had to drinkand the defendant responded leastfive" beers. The nyes."The officerlater askedhim if he was sayinghe was intoxicated appellant responded, and defendantmoved fo suppressfhese statements arguing they were the product of custodial interrogation.The Courtheld that he wasnot in custodyfor purposes Mirandawhenhe made of the statements question. Thoughthe officer'sguesfions in and concerning alcoholconsumption field sobrietyevaluations may indicatethat appellantwas under suspicion, they were nof so pointed intrusiveasto elevate investigatory fo a custodial the interrogation. Courtfurther The sfop out that the mere existence probablecause alone is not sufficientto triggerMiranda:other of person believethathe is underrestraint thedegree circumstances musfe xistfor a reasonable to to present this case. associafed withan arrestand thosecircumstances in werenot
5l_

pet.ref'd). Hernandez State,107S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San v. 41 Antonio 2003, In holdingthat the defendant's statementwas admissible, Courtfocusedon the standardthat the it is not what the officerthought, his subjective intent, but rather how a reasonablepersonin 's suspecf positionwouldseefhe issueof whether wasin custody.After somebriefquestioning he and field sobriety fesfs urereperformed, the officer formed a subjective intent to arrest the defendant didnot communicate to himuntilthedefendant theofficerhe hadconsumed but that told "ninebeers"after whichhe wasplacedunderarrestand handcuffed.Up to thatpoint,the Court '\uouldnot havefelt completely themercyof thepoliceand wouldhave foundthatthedefendant at expected be ableto proceedalong hiswayif he passed fieldsobriefy " to fhe fesfs. Forthat reason, the defendantwas not in custodywhenhe madethe statement and the statementwasproperly admitted. Lewisv. State,72 S.W.3d704 (Tex.App.-FortWorth2002,pet.ref'd). pointedout defendant beingthe driver. Officerarrivedat the sceneof the accident and witness as Officer askeddefendantfor drivers licenseand insurance, noticedodor of alcoholicbeverage, noticeddefendant stumble. Officeraskeddefendant he had anythingto drink and defendant if responded had approximately beers. Courtheld statements he five wereadmissible defendant as wasnot in custody. Statev. Stevenson, S.W.2d824(Tex.Crim.App. 958 1997). Officerarrivedat sceneof one accident and findsdefendant and hiswifeat the sceneand asked who was driving. Both defendantand his wife said she uras. Officernoted injurieson wife consisfenf her being passenger repeated question with he and the afterwhichdefendant admitted was the driver. ln holdingthat the statementwas admissible, Courtnoted that defendant's the becoming focusof a DWI investigation the time the questionwas askeddid not convertthe the at roadside stopto custodialinterrogation. Loar State 627S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. op] 1981). v. 399 , [panel product Statement madeby defendantthathe had'bne g/assof wine"madeduringtraffic stop,not of custodialinterrogationand is admr'ssrb/e. Abernathy State, pet.ref'd). v. 963S.W.2d 822(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, After stoppingdefendant, officersmelleda moderate the odor of intoxicants, noticeddefendant's eyes were g/assy, askedhim to get out of the vehicle,and if he had had anythingto drink. Defendant respondedthat he had had a few drinks. The officer askeddefendant performa to sen'es threefieldsobriefyfesfsafter whichhe again askedhim how muchhe had had to drink of anddefendant he hadconsumed drinks.In holding said four were admissible, the both statements Court found that all the measures employedby the officer until the time of the arrestwere in pursuance a temporary of investigation determine was to whether defendant driving motorvehicle a whileintoxicated. Therewas no coerciveatmosphereof custodialinterrogationas contemplated 52

by Mirandaand its progeny. No violations the Fifth and Fourteenth have been Amendments of shown,as defendant simplywas not subjected custodial interrogation. to v. Gallowav State,778 1989, pet.). no S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 111 [14th pet.ref'd). Massie State v. S.W 314(Tex.App.-Dallas .2d 1988, ,744 that is Officerupon Questioning occursas normalincidentof arrestand custody not interrogation. approachingdefendantaskedif he had been drinkingand defendantreplied "Yes, I've been drinkinga lot." Thatstatemenf admissible is Statev. Waldrop, S.W.3d 7 836(Tex.App.-Austin 1999, pet.). no A roadsidesfop doesnof place a driverin custodyto the degreethat Mirandawarningsneed to be administered. this case,the Courtreversedan orderof the trialcourtsuppressrng ln statements about whenand wherea defendantwas drinkingand his commentthat he was drunk when all statements weremadeafter the stopbut beforefieldsobriefyfesfs wereconducted. Hutto State,977 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.].1998, pet.). no 855 [14th Before an accidentinvestigationbecomesa cusfodialsituationwhere Mirandaprotectionis perceived wasnotfreeto leave; available theremustbe: 1)evidence defendant he that subjectively 2) a manifestation the officerto the defendant hisintenttoarresthim. ln this case,the Court by of foundthe officer'sconducting fieldsobrietytestingand questioning defendant not convert did of roadsidestopinto arrestand that oral statements defendant were admissible. of Harrison State, v. 788S.W.2d no 392(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1990, pet.). [1st Statement madeby defendant, response questioning officer,that he had 3-5 beers,was in fo by not resultof custodial interrogation had notedthe whereofficerhad just stoppedthe defendant, odorof alcoholon hisbreath,and had not arrested him. Courtsfressed officerwas "justbeginning to form suspicion motorisfwas intoxicated time of statement." that at Morris State, v. 897S.W.zd528(Tex.App.-El no Paso1995, pet.). DuringDWI videotaping, officer askeddefendantduringrecitationof statutorywarning, "Areyou too intoxicated understand to me?"-not custodial interrogation. pet.ref'd). Shepherd State, v. 915S.W.2 177(Tex.App.-Fort d Worth1996, Statement made by defendantthat he was not going to take breath test becausehe was too intoxicated pass it was admissible fo when it was an unsolicited responseto a query by intox operator overtheradioto arresting wasgoingto takethe test. officeras to whetherthe defendant 53

2.

INADMISSIBLE,'CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION'

Alford State, S.W.3d v. 22 669 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000,pet.ref'd). Defendant who had exhibited signsof intoxication includingfield sobrietytest failures,who was subsequently handcuffed, in custodywhen second was officerarrived6-7minutesafterthe stop. question As such,theofficer's interrogation and he wascustodial aboutwhether hadbeendrinking hisanswerof 6 beerswasinadmissible warranted reversalof hisconviction. and Gonzales State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 581 690 1979). Afterviewingvehicleweaving, asked sitin patrolcar while to driverstopped DWIinvestigation, for licensewas checked, free to go, askedif "hehad beenin troublebefore." not Scottv. State, 564S.W.2d 759(Tex.Crim.App. 1978). placedinpatrolcar,pistolfound, Driverstopped 4icense for check,arrested outstanding for warrant, asked"who pistolbelonged to?" Newberry State, v. 552S.W.2d457(Tex.Crim.App. 1977). Driver stopped trafficviolations, difficulty geftingout of car and finding hislicense, asked for had if, whatand how muchhe had been drinking,and thenplacedunder arrest. Testimony showed he was not free to go from the time he was stopped. Raqan State 642S.W.2d489(Tex.Crim.App. v. 1982). , Defendant stopped weaving. for Asked sitonpolicecarfor further Officersuspected intoxicated. to question Officertaperecordedstate nts. ing. me B. 'MIRANDA . WARNINGS''RECITATION MUSTBE ACCURATE

Statev. Subke, 918S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 11 1995pet.ref'd). Whengiving Mirandawarning,the wordingmust be followedprecisely. ln this casethe officer warningthat any statement could be used against fhe suqpect "at trial" insteadof "in court" renderedstatements madeinadmissible. C. ACCIDENT OF REPORTS ON ADMISSIBILITY STATUTE HAS NO EFFECT DRIVER'S ORALSTATEMENTS

Statev. Revna, S.W.3d128(Tex.App.-Corpus 89 no Christi 2002, pet.). Statev. Stevenson, S.W.2d 958 824(Tex.Crim.App. 1997).
54

pet.ref'd). v. 1981, Spradlinq State, 628 S.W.2d123(Tex.App.-Beaumont did Statutemakingaccident reportsprivilegedand confidential not preventpolice officerfrom givenby defendant testifying oral statements to saidaccident. concerning D. FOR DOES PLACE HIMIN"CUSTODY'' MIRANDA HANDCUFFING DEFENDANT PURPOSES?
1. NO

Rhodes State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 945 115 1997). to Basedfindingof no custodyon ifs determination whetherthe defendantwas subjected of treatment thatresultedin hisbeingin custodyfor practicalpurposes whethera reasonable and person in those circumstanceswould have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate interrogation leave. and 2. YES

-Fort Worth,2010). Campbell State, v. 222(Tex.App. 325S.W.3d Sfop of defendantconstitutedan arrestafter defendantwas placed in handcuffs,and thus defendant's subseguent requirements Mirandaand State of statements weresubjectto warning (DWl)prosecution stopped sfafnte purposes laterdriving for . Police officerwho of whileintoxicated to defendantdid not testifythat he handcuffed defendantfor officersafety pu4poses, continue investigation, to maintain fhe sfafus quo; and after handcuffingdefendant,officer asked or questions wouldbe beyondnormalTerrystopquestions. Eventhough defendant identification as jury to hear statements, casewas not reversedas Courtfoundit did it was errorto allowthe the not contribute defendant's to conviction punishment. or Alford State, S.W.3d v. 22 Worth, July20,2000,pet. ref'd). 669(Tex.App.-Fort Using the same standard listed above and distinguishing fhis case from that one held that handcuffingthe defendantdid place him in custody and thereby rendered his sfafemenfs inadmissibleand required reversal. E. STATEMENTS DEFENDANT'S BY HUSBAND NOTHEARSAY

for v. (Tex.App.-Austin Snokhous State,2010WL 1930088 2010,no pet.)(Not designated publication). Defendant's husband madethestatementto officers duringhiswife'sarrestforDWIthat"whatever you guys can do to keep her out of a DWI I wouldreally appreciate was admissible nonas it" hearsayas a presenfsense impression.(Concurring opinion)
55

F.

PRE.ARREST DO SILENCETESTIMONY/COMMENTS NOT VIOLATE5TH AMENDMENT

v. (Tex.Crim.App. Salinas State,2012WL 1414133 2012). (nota DWtcase,)buttherssue be ing able present Ihis wasa murder case to evidence preof of arrestsilence an issuethat certainly is occursin DWI casesall the timeso I thinkthiswillproveto be a usefuldecision. The Courtfindsthat the SthAmendment right to remain silentis irrelevant whendefendant underno official is can on compulsion speak that prosecutors comment that to and silenceregardless whetherthe defendanf of fesfffies. XV. FIELDSOBRIETY TESTS A. HORIZONTAL GAZENYSTAGMUS 1. ISA D MIS S IB LE

v. 2003, pet.). no Quinney State, S.W.3d 99 853(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th Gullatt State, S.W.3d v. 74 880(Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet.). no Emerson State, v. 880S.W.2d 759(Tex.Crim.App. 1994). 2. TO OFFICERDOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST TESTIFY

Emerson State, v. 759(Tex.Crim.App. 880S.W.zd 1994). pet.ref'd). Anderson State, v. 866S.W.2d 685(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1993, [1st pet.ref'd). Finley State,809S.W.2d v. 1991, 909(Tex.App.-Houston [14thDist.] 3. DOES THEOFFICER NEED BE CERTIFIED? TO (a) MUST MET BE NO, BUTRULE702REQUIREMENTS

(Not designated Pricev. State,2006 WL 1707955 (Tex.App.-Austin for 2006,pet. denied) publication). Burkhart State, 2003WL 21999896 (Tex.App.-Dallas, v. for 2003,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). Hackett State, v. (Tex.App.-Fort for 2003WL21810964 no Worth,2003, pet.)(Notdesignated publication). Kerrv. State, 921S.W.2d 498(Tex.App.-Fort no Worth1996, pet.). The Emersoncase does not require that an officer have "practitioner before his certification" testimony HGNis admlssrble.Suchdetermination to be coveredby Rule702of the lexas on is Ruleson Criminal Evidence.

56

(b)

W|LL SUFFICE FROM TRATNTNG A COURSE cERTrFrcATroN

v. Smith State, S.W.3d 65 332(Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet.). no Officerwho had extensive trainingin standardized field sobrietytests whichbeganat the police academy froma course and continued withadditional courseworkwho alsoreceivedcertification qualified testifyabout HGN. at TexasA & M University was to (c) OFFICER MUSTHAVESOMECERTIFICATION

pet.ref'd). Ellisv. State, S.W.3d 86 759(Tex.App.-Waco 2002, Officerwho testified he nevercompleted thirtyfesf caseshe wassupposed performas that to the part of a NHISA course HGNand whotestified to on upon crossthathe wasnot certified perform HGNshouldnot havebeen allowedto testifyabout HGN. Error was foundto be harmless. (d) LAPSED CERTTFTCATTON NOTDTSQUALTFY WILL

Patton State v. (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011). ,2011WL 541481 In this casedefendant contendsofficer was not qualifiedto administer HGNor testifyto its the resu/fsbecause OfficerPattenhad not beenre-certified the TexasAdministrative Codeto under performfield sobriefyfesfs whenappellantwas sfopped,that fhe fesf was not doneproperly,and thatfindingof clues3 in one eyeand 2 in the otherrenderedtest resultmedicallyimpossible. The Courtfoundcertificationis necessary whilefindingthat the officermay haveonlyheld the nof and stimulusfor three seconds insteadof four, it was within the trial court's discretionto find that any deviation committed officerduringadministration the HGNfesf wasslightand did not affect by of the reliability and admissibility the resu/fs. Appellantexhibited of three cluesin the right eye and one cluein the left eye. Theodd cluefindingwasattributed officerto defendant's following not by stimulus, therebypreventing findingotherc/ues. him Liles State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2009, pet.) (Notdesignated 2009WL 3152174 no for [1s publication). The Courtheld that even thoughthe officer'sstatecertification [see TEX.ADMIN.CODE 5221.9 (2009)lin HGNhad expiredthe monthprior to testingthe appellant, and he had not taken the requisite re-certification qualified testifyas an expertregarding courses, was nevertheless he the to administration the HGN fesf basedon histrainingand experience. of

51

4.

NOTICE TEST'S IMPROPER TRIAL FOR TO OF COURT TAKEJUDICIAL RELIABILITY

(Tex.App.-Austin O'Connellv. State, S.W.3d746 17 2000, pet.). no It wasimproperfor the trialjudge to takejudicial noticeof the HGNfesf and to includea paragraph in thejury instructionto that effect. The Courtholdsthat the reliabilityof HGNis a legislativefact, not an adjudicative fact,so TexasEvidenceRule201 doesnot apply. 5. WITNESS CAN'T CORRELATE TEST TO BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION

Smith State,65 v. S.W.3d 332(Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet.). no Webster State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Waco v. 26 17 2000,pet.ref'd). Youens State, v. 988S.W.2d404(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1999, pet.). no [1't Officer'stestimony that hisfindingfour cluesin HGNtold him there was a 75%chancethat the subjecthad a B.A.C.over 0.10 waserror. (ln Webster. arterinstruction errorrenderedharmless to disregardtestimony.) 6. VERTICAL GAZENYSTAGMUS/RESTING NYSTAGMUS

Stovall State,140S.W.3d712 v. (Tex.App.-Tyler (reh.overruled). 2004) Evidence verticalnystagmus of conducting should havebeenadmitted thetrialcourtwithout not by a DauberUKelly hearing. TheCourt points thata trialcourtmustactuallyexamine and assess out the reliability VGNbeforeit is admissible no Courthas (as of yet) donethat. So Emerson of and couldnot be citedon fhe issueof admissibility that casenevermentionedVGN. as v. State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2003, pet.). Quinney 99 no 853 [14n In holding it waserror,albeitharmless, allowtestimony "vertical that nystagmus" and to concerning "resting nystagmus," Courtdistinguished gazenystagmus the fesfsas thesetestsfromhorizontal follows. In Emerson.the Courtof CriminalAppeals exhaustively examinedthe scientifictheory behind HGN testing,but did not address the theory behind "verticalnystagmus"or "resting nystagmus" testing.For "vertical nystagmus" "resting and nystagmus" evidence be admissible, to theproponent must present evidence similarresearchof the scientific of theoryunderlying those fesfs. 7. IMPACT FAILING PERFORM OF TO FST'SPERNHTSA GUIDELINES

Sotov. State, (Tex.App.-Austin, 2009WL722266 2009). ln this casethe officeradmittedhe deviatedfrom NHIS guidelines. Specifically, testingfor in smoothpursuit,he tooklongerthanrequired he conducted portion3x and not 2x. He also as that failedto hold stimulus 4 seconds for whenchecking maximumdeviation for and whentestingfor
58

onsefat 45 degrees, stoppedat 35 degreesbecausethatis whenhe saw onsefof nystagmus. he He alsoadaptedthe testto accommodate fact that he is left-handed.Courtheld in spiteof the fhesevariations, courtdid not err in admitting HGNtestand resu/fs. trial the Leverett State,2007 v. no Wl1054140(Tex.App.-Dallas, 2007, pet.). the ln holdingthat smallvariations the way HGNwasperformeddid not renderit inadmissible, in pointedout that smallvariations the administration the fesf do not renderthe HGNtest Court in of Plouffv. resu/fsinadmissible unreliable may affectthe weightto be givento the testimony. or but v. Sfafe.192S.W.3d no Compton State, 213,(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2006, pet.) (citing [14h 120 S.W. 3d 373, 378 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet.ref'd)). Here, the officer took approxirnately fifty-threesecondsto completethe test but allegedlyshouldhave taken at least eighty-two.Thisdifference timingis nof a meaningfulvariation.McRaev. State.152S.W.3d in pet. HGNtest 739.744(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.l2004, ref'd)(holding whereofficer admifted [1"t wasinvalid,courtabuseditsdiscretion admittingHGNtestimony). thereare interuals in Moreover, in the HGNfesf wherethe officeris simplypositioning eyesfor the next test,and any variation the in the time to do so "wouldhave no effecton the reliability [the] test." of (Tex.App.-Austin for Taylorv. State,2006 WL 1649037 2006,pet. ref'd)(Not designated publication). performed Ihrs caseinvolvesan attackon the mannerin whichthe HGNfesf uras and attacks on put fonuardby the defensewith expertwifnessTroy Walden. Ihis caseinvolvesa the method detailed recitation the attacks facingan expertattackon of and is a goodread for anyprosecutor the fhe FSIs. In response the defenseattackthat the timeof thepasseswasdoneincorrectly, to Courtfoundthat "Evenif the timerecomrnended Walden and the NHISA manualis accurate, by the difference betweenthistime and that estimated OfficerClaytonappearsnegligible."The by Courtfurtherfound that there was nothingto show that the difference time would resultin a in findingof smoothpursuitof appellanfbeyesratherthana lack of smoothpursuit. TheCourt also foundthat Walden's testimony that OfficerClaytonmadeonly one pass of each eye in checking for smoothpursuit of the eyes when there shouldhave been fwo passes of each eye did not providea basisfor excluding HGNtest. Thedefensealsoattackedthe fact that the stimulus the was held at maximumdeviationfor 3 rather than 4 seconds. Again the Court found the time difference negligible.TheCourtmentioned the NHISA manualwasnot introduced. Nordid that the trial Courttake'ludicialnotice"of any suchmanual. grounds204 Revnolds State, S.W.3d (Tex.App. V. S.W.3D 163 2005) affirmed other 808 Amarillo 386(Tex.Crim.App. 2006). pet.ref'd). Comoton State, v. 120S.W.3d 2003, 375(Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.] (HGN) Policeofficer's horizontal nystagmus slightdeviation numberof seconds in takento conduct testfromnumberofsecondsrecommended DWIDetection notinvalidafe resu/fs fesf Manualdid by othenwise indicatingthat defendantwas driving while intoxicated. The objectionby the defense was that the officeradministered smoothpursuitportion of the HGN fesf in elevenseconds the pre instead the sixteen of Manual.He arguedthatthe officer seconds scribed theDWIDetection in movedthe stimulustwo and a half seconds for fasterthan recommended each eye. The Court
59

noted that the manual itself only provides approximations the time required for properly of conducting fesfs. The Defendant's fhe argumentthat the slightlyincreasedspeed with which Baggett administeredthe test amounted to an inappropriateapplicationof the technique, invalidating results would"effectively the wasfoundby the Courtto be untenable and,if accepted, negate the usefulness fhe fesfs entirely." As to the OLS, the officer failed to instructthe of defendant keep hisarmsby his side. TheCourtfoundthat it was errorto admitfhrsfesf which to it did find wasnot doneper the manualbut foundthat errorto be harmless. Ihe Courtnotedthat the officer'sfailure to instructComptonto keep his arms at his sideshouldhave made the test easierto perform. 8. AID DVDSHOWING HGNPROPERLYADMITTEDDEMONSTRATIVE AS

Hartsock State, v. 322S.W.3d 775(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2010, pet.). no In this casethe Stateoffered DVDfeaturing a videosof an individual's eyeswith and without nystagmus.The courtheld this was a propeily aid admitted demonstrative to helpthe jury understand signsthe officer the looks whenconducting HGNtest. for the B. = ONELEGSTAND LAYWITNESS TESTIMONY

Taylorv. State,2006 WL 1649037 (Tex.App.-Austin for 2006, pet. ref'd)(Not designated publication). pet.ref'd). McRae State, v. 152S.W.3d 739(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] December 02,2004, [1"1 We concludethat the testimonyby the arrestingofficer concerningthe one-leg stand,which follows,is lay urifness governed Rule701of the lexas Rulesof Criminal testimony Evidence. by Thatan officerusesfermslike "standardized attention,"doesnot mean clues,""test,"or "divided the officeris no longertestifying a lay urifness as and beginsto testifyas an expert,who must therefore qualified. The Courtdisagreed be 31, withU.S. Horn. 185F Supp.2d v. 530,(D.Md.Jan. 2002)opinion the ertentthatit holdsthatusingfhesewordsautomatically to lay changes testimony into experttestimony.Weconclude here,the words that,underthe circumstances demonstrated "clues," "test,"and "divided attention" merelyrefer to obseruations the peace officer basedon by common knowledge observations theone-legstand donot convert lay witness testimony of and the into experttestimony. We hold that the officer'stestimony, descrbedabove,concerning his as performance the one-leg-stand observations appellant's of as on testwere admissible lay wifness testimony under Rule701of the Iexas Rulesof Criminal Evidence. C. WALKANDTURN= LAYWITNESS TESTIMONY

Plouff State,192S.W.3d v. 213(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.], 2006,no pet.). [14 Arrestingofficer'stestimony regardingthe resultsof walk-and-turn one-legstandfesfs uras and admissible lay urifnesstestimonyin driving while intoxicated(DWI) prosecution.Officer's as testimony aboutdefendant's during coordination,.balance, mentatagitityproblemsexhibited and one-legstand and walk-and-turn groundedin commonknowledgethat fesfs urasobseruation excessivealcoholconsumption could cause problemswith coordination, balance,and mental agility. 50

D.

FINDINGS THE RE: OFFICER MAY TESTIFY ABOUTSCIENTIFIC STUDIES RELIABILITY FST'S OF

pdr Lorenz State,176 v. 2004, ref'd). S.W.3d492(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [1 Arresting officer's testimony fietd sobriety testsconducted on that studieshadfound thatthe three defendantwere 91 to 95 percentaccuratewhen used in conjunction with each other, did not quantitative impermissibly correlate defendant's to content(BAC). blood-alcohol E. OFFICERS FST'S MAYCOERCE SUSPECT INTOPERFORMING

Oguntope State,177S.W.3d v. 435 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2005,no pet.). [1't Officertold Defendantwho had initiallyrefusedfo do FSIs that he wouldtake him to jail if he continued refuseafter whichDefendant FSIs. Priorto hisplea, Defendant to had movedto drd suppressthe resultsof hisFSIs on the groundshe was improperly coercedinto doingfhe fesfs by the officer'sstatement.The Courtof Appeals in held that therewas no due processviolation admitting testresu/fs. In so holding,the Court pointsout that Courtof Criminal the Appealshas held that authoritiesmay compela defendantto submitphysical evidenceof intoxication. It distinguishes casefrom Erdmanas thereare no statutorywarnings fhis that applyfo FSIs. F. REFUSAL PERFORM TO AND EVIDENCE GUILT OF FST'S= PC TO ARREST

TexasDepartment Public Worth2009). of Safetv Gilfeather, S.W.3d v. 875(Tex.App.-Fort 293 Maxwell State, v. 253S.W.3d 309(Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2008,pet.ref'd). Officermay consider defendant's refusaltodo FieldSobrietylesfs whendetermining issueof the probablecauseto arrest. Texas Deoartment Public 2003, no Of Safetvv. Nielsen. S.W.3d 313(Tex.App.-Beaumont, 102 pet.). (DWI) Substantial evidence existed probable of whileintoxicated causefor driver's arrestfor driving wherepolice officernoticed severals/gnsof intoxication includingalcoholicodor comingfrom vehicle, driver's refusal to make eye contact with officer, driver's refusal to roll down window, driver'sresponse he had consumed to four beerswhenasked he hadbeendrinking, that if and two driver's refusalto takefieldsobriefy is fesfs. Thetotalityof the circumstances substantial evidence of probablecausefor Nielsen's arresf. Lonsdale State.2006WL 2480342 v. (Tex.App.-ElPaso,2006,pet.ref'd). Defendant challenged admission testimony herefusedtoperformthefieldsobriefy the fesfs. of that probative.He He complainsthatthe wasirrelevant, if relevant, evidence and moreprejudicialthan also pointsto violationsof hrs constitutional rights, arguingthat the invocationof the right to
oJ_

counsel, rightto remainsilent, the may not and therightagainsfunreasonable searchand seizure berelieduponas evidence guilt. TheCourtrejecfs of and fhesearguments findsthata defendant's refusaltoperformFSfb is relevantand admissible. heldthat itwasproperargument Courtfurther that thejury couldinfer that hisrefusalwasevidence intoxication. of Statev. Garrett. S.W.3d 650(Tex.App.-Austin, 22 2000,no pet.). Defendant's argument-whichprevailed thetrialcourt- wasthatclassic indicators inebriation in of present a normalDWIarrestwereabsentin this case. Wenotethatmanyof these thatwouldbe in factorssuchas performance fieldsobrietytests,were absent a direct resultof defendant's on as conduct, i.e., hisrefusaltoparticipate anyof thesefesfs. Whilewe regardfhese missing factors in as a part of the totalityof the circumstances, are onlya part, and wheremanyof the mrssing they factorsare due to a defendant's conduct,we believethat the officerscouldreasonably consider part of the totalityof the circumstances providedprobablecauseto arrest. that conductas that Dawkins State. pet.ref'd). v. 822S.W.2d 668,671(Tex.App.-Waco, 1991, ln prosecution for felony driving while intoxicated, admrssionof video tape which showed defendant's refusalto submitto sobrietytestsrequiring him to recitealphabet and to countaloud wasnot violationof defendanfbconsfif Evidence that utionalprivilegeagainstself-incrimination. defendantrefused to submit to sobriety fesfs drd not constitute violation of defendant's constitutional rightto be free fromself-incrimination wheretherewasno indication defendant that was compelled performthe sobrietytests. to pet. Barraza State. S.W.2d379(Tex.App.-Corpus v. 733 1987, granted) 790S.W. aff'd Christi, 2d 654(Tex.Crim.App.June 20, 1990). A requestto performa fieldsobriefyfesfis sufficiently similarto a requestto performa breathalyzer fesf so as to allow an analogyto the law governingthe admissibility evidenceof a suspecfb of refusal to take a breathalyzerfesf. Both types of fesfs are designedfo fesf the sobriety of the suspecf. We can discern reasonto distinguish no betweenthem withregardto the admissibility of refusal to perform fhe fesfs. G. FAILURETO EXPLAINFST'S IN DEFENDANT,S NATIVETONGUE= NO VIOLATION

pet.ref'd). Phono XuanDaov. State, (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2011, 337S.W.3d927 [14th No constitutional violationof defendant's rights and no right to ajury instructionwhenfield sobriety fesfsare not explained defendant's in nativetongueor preferredlanguage.

62

XVI. SPECIFIC ELEMENTS A. PUBLIC ROAD. PLACE 1. PARKING LOTS

Rouse State,651 (Tex.Crim.App. op.]1983). v. S.W.2d736 [panel v. State Carter, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 810 197 1991). Thibaut State,782 v. 1989, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Eastland no pet.). 307 Though "parking is not a "road"underArticle67011-1, a may showa road througha lot" evidence parkinglot. Howard State,744S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 1987, pet.). no 640 [14th "lmpliedConsent" lot." law doesnot applyto defendant who wasdrivingon a "parking 1, AFTERSEPTEMBER 1993 COMMTTTED {TH|SCASEDOESNOTApply TO OFFENSES WHENARTTCLE THE 67011-5 V.T.C.S WASAMENDED SUBSTTTUTTNG TERM'PUBLIC 51, PLACE'FOR'PUBLICHIGHWAY BEACH"} OR pet.ref'd). Kapuscinski State, v. 1994, 878S.W.2d 248(Tex.App.-San Antonio Statev. Nailor, S.W.2d 949 1997, pet.). no 357(Tex.App.-San Antonio place." Parkinglot canbe a "public Holloman State v. (Tex.App.-Eastland for 1995 17212433 WL 1995)(Notdesignated publication). Theparkinglot was a commonarea for the complex. Themanagerof the complextestified that the entirecomplexwassurrounded a metalfence,that the complex had between200 and 300 by residents, that the parkinglot wasa commonareafor the complex. Whena residentmoved and into the complex,the residentreceiveda "gate card" which would "electronically trigger the gate mechanism" allowtheresidentto enterthe complex.Ihe guesfsto the complex to wouldpush the phonein the resrdenf's resident's apartment numberand then the apartmentwouldring. If the residentwantedthe guestto be admitted,the residentwouldthen pusha numberand the gate placedno restrictions resrdenfs to whomthey could wouldopen. The apartment as complex on placd'. allowto cameinto the complex. Courtheld sufficient thatparkinglot was "public evidence 2. MILITARY BASES

pet. ref'd). Woodruff State, v. 899S.W.2d443(Tex.App.-Austin 1995, Tracey State, (Tex.Crim.App. v. 350S.W.2d 1961). 563 place." Militarybasecan be "public 63

3.

PARKAS A PUBLIC PLACE

pet.ref'd). v. Perrv State, Worth1998, 991S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 50 fo Thefactthata park is c/osed(its hours operation over)andthepublicis not supposed use are of the park is irrelevantto the determination whetherthe place is one to which the public has of place." access. Heldpark was a "public , 4. DRIVEWAY

Fowler State, S.W.3d 16 (Tex.App.-Amarillo v. no 65 1 2001, pet.). 1/4 Unpaved drivewayof a rural residence locatedapproximately mile from a countryroad in an part of countywas not a "public place." isolatedand secluded 5. MARINA

Shaub State, S.W.3d v. 99 253(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2003,no pet.). ln holdingthat the marinawherethe defendant operatedhisvehiclewasa publicplace,the Court focusedon evidence to that the entiremarinaareaappeared be accessible anyonewho wants to to useit. 6. GATED COMMUNITY

no Statev. Gerstenkorn, S.W.3d Antoni ZOOin, pet.). o 239 357(Tex.App.-San Thedefendant was stoppedin a gatedcommunity with a securityguardand limitedaccess. He place." In rejectingthat argument, Courtfoundthat anyone arguedthat it was not a "public the "underthe right setof circumstances." foundthe situation lt couldgarnaccessto the community groundsof a militarybasefo be a "public analogous that in the Woodruffcasewhichfoundthe to place." B. PROOF "STATE'' OF

Barton State, v. no 948S.W.2d Worth1997, pet.). 364(Tex.App.-Fort provedoffenseoccurred lexas whenit provedit occurred DentonCounty. Courtcould in State in judicial notice of that fact. take

64

C.

PROOF "MOTOR OF VEHICLE"

no Turner State,877 v. Worth1994, pet.). S.W.2d 513(Tex.App.-Fort involved the in that Reference policeofficerto vehicle "car"stJfficient establish the vehicle to by as DWI wasa motorvehicle. D. FACULTIES'' OR USEOF MENTAL PHYSICAL "NORMAL

pet.ref'd) Hernandez State,107S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San v. Antonio 2003, 41 pet.ref'd). 2002, Railsback State, S.W.3d473(Tex.App.-Houston v. 95 [1"tDist] pet.ref'd). v. Foqle State, Worth1999, 988S.W.2d 891(Tex.App.-Fort 1998, Reaoan State, v. 968S.W.2d571(Tex.App.-Texarkana pet.ref'd). pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Dallas Massie State,744 v. 1988, S.W.2d 314 does Allegation that defendant not have the "normaluseof hismentalandphysicalfaculties" did not requirefhe Sfafeto prove whatthe defendant's are. lt simplymeansthat the normalfaculties facultiesto be testedmustbelongto the defendant. E. INTOXICATION TO ADMISSIBILITY ILLEGAL DRUGS PROVE OF

(Notdesignated forpublication). (Tex.App.-Tyler2006, pet.) Cookv. State,2006 1633250 WL no The defendantwas arrested for DWl. C/ues of intoxicationincludedhorizontaland vertical nystagmus,bloodshotand glassy eyes, odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speechand Thedefendant unsteadinessonhisfeet. lncidenttohisarrest,marijuanawasfoundonhisperson. give a sampleof hisbreath. The Stateallegedthe generaldefinitionof intoxicationin refusedto madeit morelikelythat itscharging instrument.TheCourtheld that fhepossession marijuana of in couldbe explained he had smokedmarijuana, that supported inferencehisintoxication and an part by the useof marijuana.It is worthnotingthatno odorof marijuana mentioned the officer by is and itsrelationto the thoughunobjected in testimony being present to aboutverticalnystagmus wasnot error at trial of the marijuana consumption narcotics. The Courtheld that the admission of XVII. BREATH TEST A. IMPLIED LAW CONSENT

Rodriouez State,631S.W.2d515(Tex.Crim.App. v. 1982). presumption consent breath Statutory of to test. Graham State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 710 1986). 588 "lmplied a consent law"doesnot placeanymandatory on the Stateto administer chemical duty test.
65

Growe State, v. no 675S.W.2d 564(Tex.App.-Houston [14thDist.]1984, pet.). Motorist's impliedconsent not subjectto motorist's is electingto contactan attorney. B. BREATH TESTPREDICATE

Harrell State v. .2d 1986). ,725 S.W 208(Tex.Crim.App. PREDICATE: proper useof reference 1) sample. 2) existenceof periodic superuisionover machine and operation by one who understands scientific theoryof machine. proof of resultof test by witnessor witnesses qualifiedto translateand interpret 3) suchresultso as to eliminate hearsay. pet.ref'd). Kercho State, v. 1997, 948S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 34 [14th Thetestimony an Intoxilyzer of to operator a technical and superuisor theeffecttttattheinstrument was periodically tested to ensure that it was workingproperly, that a test sample run prior to properlyat that time,that appellant's Intoxilyzer fesfsdemonstrated machinewas functioning the the operatorhad been trainedin the operationof the Intoxilyzer machine,and that the technical supervisor, alsotestified who of by aboutthetheoryof thefesf,wascertified theDepartment Public predicate admittheresu/fsof thelntoxilyzer Safetyas a technical test. was superuisor, sufficient to C. INSTRUMENT CERTIFICATION 1. NEWINSTRUMENT NEED NOTBE RE.CERTIFIED

pet.ref'd). Statev. Kraqer,810 S.W.2d 450(Tex.App.-San 1991, Antonio policeagencysubstitutes approved When for it equipment another, was one brandof breathtesting program. nof necessary that therebe a reapplication certification entirebreathtesting for of 2. RECORDS ADMISSIBLE CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE AND

pet.ref'd). Ponce State, v. 828S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1991, 50 [1st Reporfsand test records which reflectedthat the Intoxilyzer machineused fo test appellant's properly alcohol concentration wasworking wereadmissible and underRule803(6) arenotmatters personnel. obserued law enforcement by

66

D.

LIMITED TO TEST RIGHT BLOOD 1. TEST TO FAILURE ADVISE RIGHT BLOOD TO OF

Maxwell State. v. 253S.W.3d 309(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2008). Defendantarguedthat breathfesf was inadmissible becausehe was not afforded'his right to out this contacta physician obtaina specimen hisblood."ln overruling pointthe Courtpoints to of providesthat a peace officeris not requiredto transport someonein that Section(c) of 724.019 custodytoafacilityfortesting,andfurther,section(d)providesthatthe'Wbj!!!ytoobtain of an additional specimen analysis the or underthis section doesnotpreclude admission evidence relatingto the analysis the specimen of taken"by the officeroriginally. McKinnon State, v. no 709S.W.2d 805(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1986, pet.). Statev. Lvons, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort no 820 46 Worth1991, pet.). Officer has no duty to advisedefendantof right to blood fesf & failureto do so will not affect admissibility breathtest. of 2. TEST NO RIGHT BLOOD TO TESTIN LIEUOF BREATH

pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Houston Aquirre State, v. 948S.W.2d377 [14thDist.]1997, pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Texarkana Drapkin State, v. 781S.W.2d710 1989, Statute doesnot give the suspecfthe right to a blood test instead a breathtest. of 3. OFFICER'S CHOICE WHETHER BREATH BLOOD OR

Statev. Neel, 808S.W.2d 1991, pet.). no 575(Tex.App.-Tyler A policeofficerarresting suspectfor is to between asking a drivingwhileintoxicated entitled choose fhe suspectto take a breath fesf or a blood test,both of whichare authorized statute. The by officerneednot trackthe statutory language to and askthe defendant takea breathor bloodtest. E. MIRANDA WARNINGS 1, NEEDNOTGIVEPRIOR REQUEST FORBREATH SAMPLE TO

Parks State, v. 666S.W.2d no 597(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1984, pet.). [1st Mirandawarnings need not be givenfo suspecfprior to breathfesf reguesf.

61

2.

REFUSAL INVOCATION RIGHTS WILL NOTEXCLUDE OF

pet.refd percuriam, S.W.2d 785 Garner State v. Worth1989) ,779 S.W.2d498(Tex.App.-Fort 158 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). BTR admissible evenif afterright to counselis invoked. Jamail State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 787 380 1990). Mixingrequestfor breathsamplewith warningsduringcustodialinterrogation such that defendant. perceived had the right to consultan attorneywill not negateabilttyto showrefusalat trial. he 3. WHETHER GIVE TO NO RIGHT COUNSEL TO TO PRIOR DEGIDING SAMPLE

Forte State, v. 759S.W.2d128(Tex.Crim.App. 1988). De Manoin State, v. 787S.W.2d 956 700S.W.2d 329(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1985)aff'd. [1st (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). F. BREATH AMPULES NEEDNOTBE PRESERVED

Turpin State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 606 907 1980). Breathampules neednot be preserved.Defendant's inabilitytoobtainbloodtestwithintwo hours did not renderbreathfesfresu/fsinadmissible. G. DtC-23 DrC-24 & WARNTNGS 1. ONLY TO REQUIREMENT THEY BE GIVENIN WRITINGRELATES ADMISSIBILITY REFUSALS OF

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1987, pet.). Nebes State, v. 743S.W.2d729 no [1st given. RulethatDIC-24warnings givenin writingdoesnot applyto casewherebreathfesfvvas be Thisrule only affectsadmissibility breathtest "refusals." of 2. FATAL FAILURE GIVE TO NOTNECESSARILY WARNINGS WRITING IN

pdrdismissed) designated (Not Anderson State. (Tex.App.-Fort v. 2006WL 744272 Worth 2006, for publication). The fact that the arrestingofficer gives an oral warningbut fails to give a written warningbefore requesting breathfesfdoesnot,by itself, Theremust a renderthe results the test inadmissible. of
68

be someshowingof a causalconnection betweenthe failureto give the writtenwarningand the defendant's refusal to submit to the breath fesf fo render the refusal inadmissible.No such connection wasshownin this caseand refusalwas held admissible. Martinez State, v. (Tex.App.-El 2005WL787075 for Paso2005)(Notdesignated publication). Therewas a disputeas to whetherthe defendantwas read the DIC-14warningsbeforebeing askedto givea breathsample. Thedefendant on refusedto givea sampleand based the conflict in testimonywanteda chargeunderArticle 38.23CCPwhichwouldallow thejury to disregardthe refusalasevidenceiftheyfoundthewarningswerenotgiven. lnrejectingthatargument,theCourt held that defendant had failedto meet the burdenof showinga causalconnection betweenany improperwarningand the decisionwhetherto submit to a breath test. For that reason,the requested chargewasproperlydenied. Schaum State, v. 833S.W.2d 1992, pet.). no 644(Tex,App.-Dallas Givingonlyoralandnot'\nrritten" warnings defendanf of to doesnot alwaysmeanevidence refusal will be inadmissible. will be subjectto a "harmless lt error"analysis.ln this case,held to be "harmless" evidence refusalwasproperlyadmitted. and of Lanev. State, 951S.W.2d 242(Tex.App.-Austin 1997, pet.). no Giving only oral and not written warningsto defendantdoes not render breath test result inadmissible. 3. PRIOR REFUSAL TO WRITTEN WARNINGS NEEDNOTBE PROVIDED

TexasDepartment Public of Safetv Jaureoui, S.W.3d v. 176 846,(Tex.App.,-Houston Dist.], [1 2005, rev.denied). O'Keefe State, v. no 981S.W.2d 872(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1998, pet.). [1't pet.ref'd). (1"'Dist.) v. State, 983S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston 1998, 58 Rowland pet.ref'd). v. (Tex.App.-Houston Jessup State, 935S.W.2d Dist.]1996, 508 [14th No harm shownwheredefendantwas not given DIC-24statutorywarningsin writinguntil after refusal.

4.

= THATARREST PRECEDE READING DIC-24 FLEXIBLE OF

Nottinoham State, v. 1995, pet.). no 908S.W.2d 585(Tex.App.-Austin Though defendantwas nottold he wasunderarrestpriorto DIC-24beingread to him, thereading of theDIC-24and circumsfances to concerning readingweresufficient justifya findingthatthe the
69

wasunder requirement met eventhoughofficertestifies he did not thinkdefendant that arrest was arrestat the time. 2007,no pet.). See also Washburn State.235S.W.3d346, (Tex.App.-Texarkana v. 5. BY SATISFIED MAKING IN REQUIREMENT DIC.24NOTICE WRITING N'AVAILABLE'' WRITTEN COPY

1 Texas Department Public d of Safetv Latimer, S.W.2 240(Tex.App.-Austin997,no pet.). v. 939 leaving with Wriften noticerequirement applied requestfor bloodsample complied by officer's as to the writtencopy with the nurseto give the defendantthe followingday. 6. NEEDNOTBE SAMPLE WHOREADS DIC.24 REQUESTS & OFFICER ARRESTING OFFICER

1998, Texas Departmentof Publicsafetvv. Walter,979 S.W.2d22(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th no pet.). pet.ref'd). McBride State,946 v. 1997, 100(Tex.App.-Texarkana S.W.2d For officerto request attegedty of that intoxicated driverprovide specimen breathor blood,it is not necessarythat sameofficerobseruedriver, arrestdriver, transportdriver,and informdriver of consequences refusalfo take test. of 7. BASISFOR NOTNECESSARILY CIVILIAN READING WARNINGS EXCLUSION

pet.ref'd). Harrison State, v. 766S.W.2d 600 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth1989, the A peace officer,rather than a civilianbreath test operator,must give a defendant statutory givesthe statutorywarning alcohol on warning refusingalcoholfesfgbuf the fact thata civilian on Beforea inadmissible. fesfsdoes not rendera defendant's refusalto take the testautomatically trial court is obligatedto excludethe evidence,the defendant must show a causalconnection betweenhisrefusalto give a breathspecimen and the fact that a civiliangave the warning.

8.

THOUGH IT'S CORRECT. DIC.24 WORDING OR GREATER.IS .10 (Note:At the time thesecasescamedown, NOTTIEDTO DRIVING .10was the per se standard.)

(Tex.App.-Corpus 1999, Christi TexasDepartment Public of v. Safetv Bennoit, S.W.2d212 994 pet.denied). pet.ref'd). Mclainv. State, 1998, 984S.W.2d 700(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, no Antonio Shirley TexasDepartment Public v. of Safetv,974 .2d321(Tex.App.-San S.W pet.). 10

TexasDepartment Public Safety Butler, v. 960 S.W.2d375(Tex.App.-Houston of [14thDist.] 1998, pet.). no (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet.). no Martin Department Public v. of Safetv, S.W.2d772 964 Thefollowing and analysis showsthatyou have language the DIC-24:"lfyou givethe specimen on permit or privilegeto operatea motor an alcoholconcentration 0.10 or more, your license, of mustbe 0.10or vehiclewillbe suspended. is not defective not statingthat the concentration .." for to more "at the time of driving."It is clearthat it wasnot the intentof the legislature requirea fesf to ta showthat the defendant was0.10at the timeof drivingfor a license suspension be calledfor. becauseit Thusthe statute shouldnot, and doesnot, containthe wording"at the time of driving" doesnot pertainto whetherthe arrestee was drivingwhileintoxicated. 9. DIC. 24IN SPANISH (a) DID TRANSLATION NOTMAKECONSENT ERROR WRITTEN lN INVALID

v. no Gonzalez State, Worth1998, pet.). 967S.W.2d457(Tex.App.-Fort Complaint was that the Spanishversionof the DIC-24warningtranslates "if you refuse the to analysis, that actioncan be usedagainstyou in the future"and that doesnot exactlytrack the and the statutorily languageverbatim. The Courtheld that verbatimtrackingis not necessary warning language substantially complieswith the statutorymandate. (b) AUDIO TAPEREADING OF FAILURE TRANSLATE TO SPANTSH AT WARNING INTO ENGLISH TRIALTHOUGHERRORWAS HARMLESS

(Tex.App.-Fort Montoya State,2012 1868620 v. WL Worth2012). At thejail the officerhandedthe defendant Spanish versionof the DIC-24and playedan audio a tape of an officerreadingfhosewarnings Spanish.At trialthe Spanish audiotape wasplayed in of to thejury but was not translated. The Courtheld that "evenassuming" admission the the was warnings withouttranslation error,therewasnothingin therecordto showthe defendant was harmedas it did not have a "substantial injurious effecton thejury's verdict." or 10. WARNINGS COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE (a) NEEDTo BE GIVEN

Texas Department Public 1998, pet.). no of Safetvv. Thomas, S.W.zd (Tex.App.-Waco 985 567 Defendant whowasarrested DWIhelda commercial him for that driver'slicense allowed to operate both commercial non-commercial and motor vehicles.After his arresthe receivedthe warnings requiredby Chapter724(applying non-commercial to drivers)andrefusedfo givea breathsample.
71,

He challenged subsequent his license he suspension arguingthat because wasnot warnedof the consequences hisrefusalto givea specimen of 522(regarding commercial under724and Secfion /icenses,), refusalwas not knowingand voluntary. Courtof Appeals his foundthat the failureto warnhim of both consequences renderedhisrefusalinvoluntary. (b) DoN'TNEED BE GTVEN TO

pet. Texas Department Public Worth 2001, of Safetvv.McGlaun S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 776 51 denied). Ihe rssueis whetherfailureto warn the defendant the consequences hisrefusalto give a of of breathfesf as to his commercial license means his licenseshouldnot be suspended.The defendant wasnot operating commercial a vehiclewhenhe wasstopped. TheCourtheldthatthe Defendant properlywarnedand hislicense was the shouldbe suspended. Specifically, Courtheld that724.015 doesnot distinguish between commercial non-commercialvehicles, it applies and so to all vehicles. Thefact that differentconsequences authorized morethan one applicable by are providedfor each. statute doesnotreducethenoticegivento the defendant the consequences of The Courtnofesthe contraryholdingin Thomas and declinesto followthat opinion. SeealsoTexas Department PublicSafetyv. Struve.79S.W.3d796(Tex.App.-CorpusChristi, of 2002, pet.denied). 11. DIC23 & DIC24 DOCUMENTS NOTHEARSAY ARE

Block State 1gg7 530767 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1gg7,pet.ref'd) designated (Not WL , [14th for publication). DIC 24 is not hearsayasthe warningsform not offeredto provethe truthof the matterasserfed is in thosewarnings, ratheris offeredto showthat the warnings but weregivento the defendant. TexasDepartment Public (Tex.App.-Fort Worth2003, of Safetv Mitchell,2003 1904035 v. WL pet.). no DIC 23 and DIC 24 wereproperlyadmittedunderthe publicrecordsexceptionto the hearsayrule 803(8). 12. FAILURE READ TO PORTION DIC24NOTPRECLUDE OF "UNDER21" ADMISSION BT OF

(Not Statev. Klein,2OlO 3611523 (Tex.App.-Waco WL for 2010, reh.overruled) designated publication, ref'd). pet. The defendant'sconsentto a breath fesf was voluntarilygiven, despitethe police officer'sfailure to comply with a statutoryrequirementto orally recite warnings to defendantbefore obtaining consentfor the breath test. ln this casethe warningsomittedconcerned consequences the of refusingor of givinga samplefor someoneunder 21. Therewas no evidencethat the police 72

the since defendant officer's failureto readthe warnings anyimpacton her consent, especially had wasprovidedwith the written warnings. 13.
URINESAMPLE

(a)

MAYBE REQUESTED

pet.ref'd). Hawkins State, v. 1993, 865S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 97 Christi ln holdingthatitwas properfortheofficertoaskfor a urinespecimen, Courtpoints the outthatthe implied consentstatutespecifically allowsa personto consentto any other type of specimen. Police officer may requesturine specimen insteadof breath or blood, even though statute specifically recognizes onlybreathand blood tests. (b) TO RIGHT REFUSE ts ADMISSTBLE WTTHOUT EXPLAINING

Harrison State, v. 205S.W.3d 549(Tex.Crim.App. 2006). Defendant wasarrestedfor DWI and afterhavingthe DIC-24read to her agreedto give a brealh samplewhichshowedno alcohol. She r,rras asked to give blood and agreedas well and was painfulattempts get blood,she transported hospital blooddraw.Afterfiveor sixsomewhat to to for was askedif shewouldgive urine instead, to and sheagreedso as to avoidcontinuing be stuck to obtaina blood sample. The urine sampleshawedcontrolledsubsfancegand the defense attacked urinesampleon thebasisthattheofficerdidnot warnher that shedidnothaveto give the a sampleand her refusalto give urine wouldnot resultin a licensesuspension. The Courtof Appeals foundthat the consentto giveurinewasnot voluntary it wasgivento avoidthe further as painof a blooddraw. TheCourtof CriminalAppeals that foundthattherewasno requirement any warnings read beforeaskingfor consent a urinesampleand upheldthe trial court'sfinding be to that the consent was voluntary. H. NOTNECESSARY SHOW210 LITERS BREATH TO OF

pet.ref'd). Waqner State v. 1986, ,720 S.W.2d827(Tex.App.-Texarkana Nof necessary show that 210 litersof breathwereusedin the lntoxilyzer fesf to I. BREATH TESTNOTCOERCED 1. NOT OF EXTRAWARNING REFERRED CONSEQUENCES PASSING TO REFUSING

Bookman State, (Tex.App.-Waco, v. 2008WL 3112713 2008,reh.overruled). In holding that the officer'sstatementto the defendantregardingthe breath test "that if the 73

defendantpassed, officerwouldlet him go,"didmakethe defendanf's involuntary.In the consent so holdingthe Courtsfafes"Texasappellate held that consent a breath to courtshave uniformly fesf is not renderedinvoluntary merely becausean officer hasexplained that the subjectwill be released ffhe passesfhe fesf." Hardv State, v. (Tex.App.-Corpus 2005WL 1845732 designated for Christi, Aug.4, 2005)(Not publication). In response her question, "if to officerinformed defendant shewouldpassthe breathfesf,she the probably released."ln response fhe defendant's would be on fo assertion appealthatthisviolated Erdman.the Courtnotedthat the "statement appellant fallsfar shortof the officer'sstatements to foundto be coercive Erdman." TheCourtfocusedon the fact that the officerdid not makeany in statements aboutthe consequences appellant's of refusaltotakea breathtestbeyondfhoselisted question, in Section 724.015 the Transportation of appellant's Officer Code. By merelyanswering Trujillodid not warnappellantthat dire consequences wouldfollowif sherefusedto takethe breath fesf. pet.ref'd). Nessv. State,152S.W.3d 759(Tex.App.-Houston District] 2, December 2004, [1 Policeofficer'sstatement defendant the sceneof the arrestthat "pending outcomeof breath to at test,defendant wouldbe detained" not renderdefendant's to did submrssrbn breathtestcoerced, whereofficerdid not make any statements about consequences refusalto take test beyond of fhose listedin statute, wouldfollowif he and he did not warn defendant that dire consequences refusedto takebreathtest. pet. Urouhart State,128S.W.3d701(Tex.App.-El v. Paso2003,reh.overruled, ref'd). Statement officerto defendantthat if he passedthe breath test he wouldbe releasedwas by allegedto be coercive shouldresult suppression hisbreathfesfresu/fs. Courtfoundthat and in of therewasno causalconnection betweenthe statement to and the decision givea breathsample. Sandoval State17 S.W.3d v. 792,(Tex.App.-Austin, 2000,pet.ref'd). Suspecfaskedwhat wouldhappenif he "passedthe (breath)test?" Officerrespondedthat if suspecffailedthe test,he wouldbe chargedwith DWl, but if he passed,the officerwouldcall a relativeto comepick up suspecf.Suspecf tooka breathtest. Courtupheldthe testdistinguishing fhesefactsfromErdman. lt did thisby pointingout thaErelman tellinga suspecfabout concerned the extra-statutory consequences a "refusal"to submitto a breathtestwhilein this casethe of extrawarning dealtwithwhatwouldhappenif he "passed"the test. TheCourtfurtherpointedout that therewas absenceof evidence that the extra warningactuallycoercedthe suspect.

14

2.

ACTUALLY COERCED NO EVIDENCE THATADDITIONAL WARNING DEFENDANT

no TexasDepartment Public 1999, pet.). of v. 823(Tex.App.-Austin Safety Rolfe, 986S.W.2d (hypothetically) Officer admitted when asked, if sherefusedto givea sample that totellingsuspecf, that this shewouldbejailed. Heldthat consentto breathfesf was stillvalid absent any evidence additional warningactuallycoercedsuspecfinto submitting a breathtest. to 3. WARNING RELIED UPONEXTRA NO EVIDENCE THATDEFENDANT

pet.ref'd). Ewerokeh State, v. 796(Tex.App.-Austin 1992, 835S.W.2d "if Officertellingdefendant he failedtesthe wouldbejailed,"foundnot to be coercive wherethere wasno evidence that defendant reliedon thisincorrectstatement. 4. UNDERSTATED DEFENDANT GAVESAMPLE, CONSEQUENCES

Franco State, S.W.3d425(Tex.App.-Austin v. 82 2002,pet.ref'd). After being arrested DWl, the defendant for Code was read the standardlexas Transportation give a sample. He gave a Ann. 724.015 admonishments to the consequences refusingto as of sample and then argues that he should have been read the admonishments under lexas Transportation Code Ann. 522.103(a)as he also holds a commercialdrivers license. The commercialconsequences a refusal are harsher than fhose for non-commercial holders. of Withoutaddressing whether failureto readhimtheadditional warning wasa mistake, Court the the holds that he has failed to show he was coerced. Specifically,the Court holds "(The plausiblyargue that his decisionto take the breath fesf urasinducedor defendant)......cannot coercedby the officerunderstating consequences a refusal." the of SEEalso Curlv. State,1994 33757096 no WL Christi 1999, pet.). fl-ex.App.-Corpus 5. TO TO AT MTSIT IS THE DEFENDANT'S BURDEN SHOWCONSENT GIVEBT WAS NOTVOLUNTARY

pdr Statev. Amava, 221S.W.3d 797(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2007, ref'd). Thisinvolveda claim that the breathfesf was not voluntary becausethe warningswereread in Englishand only the writtencopygivento the defendantwasin Spanish. Thetrialjudge concluded that because statutorywarningwasnot read in the Spanrsh we the language and because do not knowwhetherthe defendant warningsheet,we haveno way of knowing couldread the Spanrsh if the defendant whatthe officerwastellinghim. understood, at leastsubstantially or understood, Thetrialjudge suppressed breathfesfresu/fs. The Courtof Appeals reversedthe trialceurt, the point to someevidence findingit wasthe defendant's rebutting presumption arising burdento the
15

from the implied consent statute. This finding-that the evidencedid not establishwhether the defendant couldor couldnotreadthe Spanish DIC-24form-requiredthe trialcourtto overrule defendant's motionfo suppress. 6. BETWEEN INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CAUSAL CONNECTION OFFICER STATEMENT CONSENT AND

(Tex.App.-Fort Berqner State, v. 2008WL 4779592 Worth2008,no pet.). ln this appealthe defendantclaimedthat her breathfesf resu/fshouldhave been suppressed whenaskedfor because officer's of statement regardingconsequences refusal. Thedefendant of a sampleafter the warningswereread, sardshe wouldgive a sample. Whileofficer was out of the room, shecalleda friendon her cell,andhe toldher to refuse.Whensheasked officerwhatwould jail if shedid not blow. Whileconceding happenif sherefused,he told her that shewouldgo to thattheofficer's in the statementwas thetypethatresulted suppression Erdman. Courtfound of in that there was no causal connectionbetween the statementand the refusal. Upon cross examination defendant the admittedshealreadyknewthat shewouldgo tojail if sherefusedso pressures" Erdmanand the the officer'sstatement that couldnot have causedthe "psychological casesthat followedwere designed prevent. to J. BREATH TESTFOUNDTO COERCED BE

Statev. Serano, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston no 894 74 [14thDist]1995, pet.). Whereofficertold defendant he passedthe breathtesthe wouldbe released, and if he failedit if he wouldbe arrested eventhoughtwo whiledefendant at scene,saidstatement was wascoercive passedfrom time of the statement time of breath testand even thoughanotherofficer hours to properlyadmonished prior to the sample's defendant beinggiven. Erdman State, v. 861S.W.2d 890(Tex.Crim.App. 1993). Officer's incorrectly informing defendant consequences refusaltogivebreathsamplewillnot of of always = evidencethat consentwas coerced. Quesfibnof voluntariness a case-by-case is 'if question fact. Courtconcluded of underfhesefactsthatofficerstatingto defendant he tookthe testand passedhe withDWI"constituted wouldbe released, if he refusedhe wouldbe charged but coercion. State Sells, v. 798S.W.2d 865(Tex.App.-Austin 1990, pet.). no "would Motorist's consent breathfesfwasnot voluntary to officer'sstatement defendant to that due automatically chargedand incarcerated" he refused. be if Hallv. State, 649S.W.2d 627(Tex.Crim.App. 1983).

16

automatically whenofficer said,"You're Motorist's consent breathtestheldnot to be voluntary to your license be suspended you refuseto give a breathsample." convicted DWI and will if of K. BREATH TESTREFUSAL EVIDENCE 1. AS EVIDENCE GUILT OF

pet Mody State, S.W.3d v. 2 652(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1999, ref'd). [14th Finlev State, v. Dist]1991 pet.ref'd). 809S.W.2d 909(Tex.App.-Houston , [14th guilt. Jury can considerBlRas evidence defendant's of 2. NOVIOLATION 5THAMENDMENT OF

(Tex.App.-Dallas Gressett State, S.W.2d748 v. 695 1983), aff'd,723 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 669 1986). Evidenceof a defendant's refusalto submitto blood alcoholtest after lawfulrequestby police officeris admrssible trial when intoxicationis an issue. at Bass State,723 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 687 1986). ln the contextof an arrestfor drivingwhileintoxicated,a police inquiryof whetherthe suspectwill take a bloodfesf is not an interrogation withinthe meaningof the FifthAmendment. SEEalso Shepherd State,915S.W.2d Worth1996, pet.ref'd). v. 177(Tex.App.-Fort 3. REASON FOR REFUSAL AND CONDITIONOF INSTRUMENT IRRELEVANT

pet Modv State, S.W.3d v. 2 652(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1999, ref'd). [14th pet.ref'd). Moore State, S.W.2d701(Tex.App.-HoustonDist.] v. 981 1998, [1't Evidenceof defendant's refusalto take a breathfesf was properlyadmitted,and Statehad no preadmittance burden to show that defendantwas over .10 at the time of driving, why the refused,or that instrument defendant wasaccurate. 4. REFUSAL IS BASED INTOXICATION STILLA "REFUSAL'' ON

Malkowskv TexasDepartment Public v. 873(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] of Safety, S.W.3d 53 [1't pet.denied). 2001, Thiswasan appealof an ALRhearingwheredefendant refuse that claimed he didnot intentionally to give a sample;he was just too intoxicated comply. Theundisputed was that the testimony to
11

defendantagreedto give a sampleand accordingto the breath test operatorwas truly tryingto do so but was too intoxicated comply. Courtheld that whena person is unableto give a breath to sample becauseof his voluntaryintoxication that qualifiesas a refusal under 724.032of the Transportation Code. 5. INTOXICATION BE PRESUMED FROMBTR MAY

Standefer State, S.W.3d177(Tex.Crim.App. v. 59 October 2001) 31, Thomas State, v. 990S.W.2d 858(Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, pet.). no Gaddis State, v. 753S.W.2d 396(Tex.Crim.App. 1988). lntoxicationis a legitimatedeductionfrom defendant'srefusal to take a breath test. 6. = REFUSAL FAILURE FOLLOW TO BREATH TESTINSTRUCTIONS

Kennedv TexasDepartment Public v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] of 1493802 Safetv ,2OO}WL [1't 2009,no pet.). Texas Department Public of Antonio 2002, no Safetv Sanchez. S.W.3d (Tex.App,-San v. 506 82 pet.). Repeatedlyfailing to follow directionsin submittingan adequatesample for breath testing consfifufes intentional an refusal. L. LATEBREATH TEST. CANBE SUFFICIENT 1. LATETESTNOTCONCLUSIVE IS PROBATIVE BUT

pet.ref'd). Owenv. State, (Tex.App.-Waco 905S.W.2d434,437-39 1995, Martin State v. no Worth1987, pet.). ,724 S.W.2d 135(Tex.App.-Fort Late breathtest,thoughnot conclusive, probativewhencombined is withothertestimony. 2. AFTER HOUR 20 MINUTES 1 &

Annisv. State, 578S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). Breathtesttakent hourand20 minutes afterthe stopmaybe sufficient proveintoxication the to at time of stop when coupledwith arrestingofficer'stestimony. 3. AFTER2HOURS

Holloway State, pet.ref'd). v. (Tex.App.-Beaumont 698S.W.2d745 1985, Breath test taken2 hoursafterthe stopof the defendant may provide basisto find sufficient defendant intoxicated the time of the accident at with other evidence an in when coupled involuntary manslaughter case.
t6

4.

AFTER HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 &

Dorsche State, v. 514S.W.2d 755(Tex.Crim.App.1974). Breath test taken 2 hours & 15 minutesafter the stopmay providesufficientbasrsfor finding defendant over.10 at timeof stop. 5. AFTER HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 &

Verbois State, v. 909S.W.2d140(Tex.App.-Houston no [14thDist]1995, pet.). 6. AFTER HOURS 30 MINUTES 4 &

Douthitt State, v. 127S.W.3d 327(Tex.App.-Austin 2004,no pet.). Resu/fs breathtest administered% hours of 5 stopped drinkingand4 % hours after defendant after accidentwhichresultedin a chargeof lntoxicationManslaughterwererelevantto show the defendant not havenormaluseof hismentalor physicalfaculties time of accidentbecause did at of excessalcoholconsumption. 7. AFTERTHOURS

Kennemur State, v. pet. 280 S.W.3d 305(Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008,reh. overruled, ref'd). In thisIntoxication Manslaughter case, approximately the sevenhoursaftertheaccident defendant had a blood-alcohol content(BAC)of .098. The Courtfoundthat hisappearance and the blood alcohol test, even though it was taken many hours after the wreck, tended to make it more probablethathe wasintoxicated the timeof the collisionbecause at therehad beenevidence that he introduced alcoholinto hisbodyprior to the accident. M. OBSERVATION PERIOD 1. MORE THANONEOFFICER REQUIREMENT OBSERVATION

Statev. Melendes, S.W.2d502(Tex.App.-San pet.ref'd). 877 Antonio 1994, Same operatoris not requiredto observeand administer breath test. Officerwho was alsoa certifiedoperatorobserveddefendant 15minutesand then turneddefendant for over to another operatorwho administered test. the

79

2.

2NDTEST N ON E E D T O REPEATON

no Antonio 1994, pet.). Statev. Mova, 877S.W.2d 504(Tex.App.-San periodis Whenfesf is repeateddue to intoxerrormessage, additional15 minuteobservation an not necessary. 3. FOR 15 TO NO LONGERNECESSARY "OBSERVE''DEFENDANT MINUTES

no 1994, pet.). Statev. Reed, 888S.W.2d117(Tex.App.-San Antonio provide expressly neednot be continuously Subject observed 15minutesnow thatregulations for presence. that subjectneed onlybe in the operator's continuous N. TEST BREATH TESTDELAYPRECLUDING BLOOD

pet.ref'd). Hawkins State, v. 1993, 865S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 97 Christi Fact that breath fesf was not taken until two hoursafter arresttherebyprecludingoption of defendant'sexercisingright for blood test within2 hours of arrestdid not renderbreathfesf resu/f inadmissible. O. OFFIGER MAYREQUEST MORE THANONETYPEOF TEST

pet.ref'd). 1993, Statev. Gonzales, S.W.2d 850 672(Tex.App.-San Antonio Wheredefendantwas unableto give sufficientbreathsampledue to asthma,it wasproper for of officerto requesta blood test and indicatethe DIC-24consequences refusalwouldapply to bloodfesfreguestas well. SEEALSO 1997, Texas Departmentof PublicSafetyv. 76 Duooin,962 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [1st pet.). no 1998, Kerr Texas v. Department Public of 973 d732(Tex.App.-Texarkana nopet.). Safetv, S.W.2 P. BREATH TESTADMISSIBLE PROOF LOSSOF NORMAL AS OF

(Tex.App.-Corpus Huntv. State, 1993, pet.). no 848S.W.2d764 Christi Where Court refused to submit charge on .10 definitiondue to inabilityor failure of State to as extrapolate, wasproperfor the Sfafefo arguethatthejury consider breathtestresult proof it the of "/ossof normal."

80

a.

BREATH TESTRESULTS ADMISSIBILITY ISSUES 1. BREATH TESTRESULT NOTHEARSAY IS

Stevenson State,895 S.W.2d694 (Tex.Crim.App. v. 1995)on remand,920 S.W.2d342 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996, pet.). no When lntoxilyzeroperatordid not testify,the Court held the fesf resu/f becamehearsayand remandedcase fo Court of Appealsto make that determination (controversial decisionwith 4 drssenfs). When askedon remandto considerwhetherbreathfesf resu/fsare hearsay,found (logically)that a breath fesf s/rpcould not be "hearsay" and affirmedthe originalholding. Smith State,866 v. S.W.2d731(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 1993, pet.). no [14th "Computer-generated is not hearsay." Wherethe computerconducfsfhe test itself,rather data than simply storingand organizing data enteredby humans,the test resultis not subjectto a hearsayobjection. Theproper objectionto the admissibilityof a computer-generated Intoxilyzer printoutslipshouldbe baseduponwhetherthe Sfafehas shownthat the printoutis reliable. 2. PARTIAL TESTRESULTS INADMISSIBLE

Bossv. State,778 S.W.2d 594(Tex.App.-Austin 1989, pet.). no Arresting officershouldnothavebeenpermitted testifythat,although validlntoxilyzer result test to wasnot obtained, preliminarily digitalindicator registered breathat alcoholcontentof defendant's levelthat was two and one half timesthe legallevelof intoxication. 3. NEWTECHNICAL SUPERVISOR LAYPREDICATE OLDTESTS FOR CAN

Henderson State,14 S.W.3d v. 409(Tex.App.-Austin 2000,no pet.). TechnicalSuperuisor maintained who instrumentwas notcaltedto testify. The Statecatted his successorrnsfead did not preparereference who maintain instrument when sampleor personally sample was given. Courtheld that succeedingsupervisor could rely on previous supervisor's records as basrsfor opinionthat breath test machinewas workingproperly. Alsoheld to be relevantthat new supervisor had personal knowledge that old superuisor certified. was R. KELLYV.STATE 1. APPLIES BREATH TO TESTS

Hartman State, v. 946S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 60 1997). Thiswasa breathfesf casein whichfhe r'ssue the motionfo suppress was whetherthe fesf sef at
dl_

forthin Kellv v. State.824 S.W.2d 568(Tex.Crim.App. 1992)appliedto breathtests. The Court and holdsthat the Kellv test is of Criminal Appealsremandsback to the Court of Appeals evidence. applicable all scientific to evidence offeredunder Rule702and not justnovelscientific Thethreeprongs that must be satisfiedare: (1) the underlyingscientifictheorymust be valid; (2) must have beenproperly the technique applyingthe theorymust be valid;and (3) the technique appliedon the occasion question. in 2. FIRST TWOPRONGS KELLYTESTMETBY STATUTE OF

permanently in abated 108S.W.3304 Beard State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Eastland v. 1999), 5 883 (TCA-2003), opinionwithdrawn 2003 WL 21398347 (TA-Eastland,June 18, 2003) in (unpublished). (Case at can waspermanently abated to death.Thebodyof opinion befound due http:i/u.tww. courts.state.tx. cca. htm. us/opinions/028200. ). Harmonizing the Transportation Code and Rule 702, we hold that when evidenceof alcohol concentration shownby the results analysis breathspecimens takenat therequestor order as of of theory has of a peace officeris offeredin the trial of a DWI offense,(1) the underlying scientific been determined the legislature be valid; (2) the technique applyingthe theory hasbeen by to by determined thelegislature be validwhenthespecimen by wastakenandanalyzed individuals to of who werecertifiedby, and were usingthe methodsapproved the rulesof, the Department by PublicSafety;and (3) the trial court must determinewhetherthe techniquewasproperlyapplied, in accordance with the department's in ruleson the occasion question. Henderson State,14 S.W.3d v. 409(Tex.App.-Austin 2000,no pet.). Testimony regardingthe validityof the underlying theoryof breath test analysisand technique the recognized applyingtheorywas not necessary test resu/fsto be admissible.Legislature for of validityof the theoryand the technique authorizing admission fesf whenrt passedthe statute resu/fsin DWlcases. S. PROPER OFFER SLIPSTO SHOWNO RESULT TO OBTAINED BT

Kercho State, v. 948S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston 34 [14thDist]1997pet.ref'd). State offered Intoxilyzers/ps to show no fesf result was obtained. Defenseobjectedthat compliance with DPSregulation is wasnot shown. Courtheldthatsuchcompliance requiredonly whentest results beinooffered, the are andin fhiscase sincethe Stateconceded fesf wasinvalid and the s/rpsdrdnot showany result,the admission the fesf s/rpswasproper. of T. EXCLUSIVE LOSSOF NORMAL PERSE LAW EVIDENCE NOTMUTUALLY &

pet.ref'd). Daricek State, v. (Tex.App.-Austin 875S.W.2d770 1994, Proofneededattrialto show"lossoffaculties" perseoffense not mutually in exclusive that are and 82

blood test result is probativeof /oss of facultiesand failure of FSIs makes it probablethe breath or blood testtakenan hour beforeis reliable. U. NO SAMPLE TAKEN= NO DUEPROCESS VIOLATION

Johnson State, v. 1996, pet.). no 913S.W.2d 736(Tex.App.-Waco Failure of officer who arrested defendantfor DWI to offer blood or breath test did not deny defendanthisdueprocessrights. No evidence wouldhavebeenusefulor that officer that results actedin bad faith (defendant wasbelligerent). V. = FAILURE TIMELY TO BT RESPOND REPEATED REQUEST REFUSAL TO

pet.ref'd). Statev. Schaeffer, S.W.2d113 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, 839 Duringvideotape to session,appellantchangedhismind severaltimesaboutconsenting breath test.Officers refusedto read appellanthisrightsfor thirdtime,or allowhim to read themhimself. Courtfoundthat'appellant neveraffirmatively consented breathtest,and that trial courtcould to have reasonablyconcluded,basedon the record,that appellantdid not voluntarilyconsentor refuseto give a breathtest. Judgeb suppression breathtestupheld. of W. EXTRAPOLATION 1. UNDER IS NOTNEEDED PROVE INTOXICATED TO DEFENDANTWAS TESTDEFINITION CHEMICAL

Stewart State, v. 129S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 93 2004). ln a lower courtopinion,the SanAntonioCourtof Appeals held that a .16 breathfesf resu/fwas inadmissible, not irrelevant, "noevidence" the absence extrapolation shouldtherefore and and in of have been admiftedinto evidence. The Court of CriminalAppeals reversedand remanded rejectingthat argument. lt specifically eighty held that the resu/fsof a breath test administered pulledover wererelevantevenwithout minutesafterthe defendant retrograde extrapolation. was One argumentthat the court rejected was that Secfibn 724.064of the Transportation Code mandatesthat such resu/fsare admissible DWI cases. The Court alsofailed to addressthe in issueof whethertheprobativevalueof the breathfesfresu/fswereoutweighed the prejudicial by effect. The case wasremandedto the SanAntonioCourtof Appeals addressthat issueand to otherpoints. Ihis casewas senfbackby the Courtof Criminal couldanswer Appealsso the Courtof Appeals the probativevs. prejudicialeffect issue. In holdingthat the probativevalue outweighedthe prejudicial effect,the Courtpointedout that both of the samplesfesfedsignificantly over the legal presentation blood-alcohol of limit,the breathfesfresu/fsrelateddirectlyto the chargedoffense, the evidencedid not distractthejury away from the chargedoffense,and the Stateneededthe evidence proveintoxication to evidence to due that defendant tookfieldsobriefyfesfsunderpoor 83

wasnot conditions and shepassedfour of the fieldsobriefy fesfs. Notethe needfor the evidence as important the Courtof CriminalAppeals Mechler. in to 7,2003, pet.). no Garcia State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]August v. 112 839 [14th permanently in abated 108S.W.3304 Beard State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.*Eastland v. 1999), 5 883 (TCA-2003), opinionwithdrawn 2003 WL 21398347 (TA-Eastland, June 18, 2003) in (unpublished). waspermanently abateddue to death. Thebodyof opinioncanbe foundat fCase http://www. cou rts.state. u{o pinion{02 8200. l. cca. tx. htm ln responseto the defendant'sargumentthat withoutretrogradeextrapolation breath test the 's resu/fsthemselves wereinadmssrble theywereirrelevant showthesuby'ecfBACat the time to as pointedout that the of the sfop unlessthe Stateoffersextrapolation testimony.Judge Womack argumentwasone that'\ve have neveraccepted and that othercourtshaverejected." SEEALSO: Forte State v. .2d 1986). ,707 S.W 89 (Tex.Crim.App. Pricev. State,59 S.W.3d297(Tex.App.-FortWorth2001,pet.ref'd). 2000, no Texas Department Public of Thompson, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Beaumont 14 853 Safetyv. pet.). Mireles State, S.W.3d v. I 128(Texas 1999). (Tex.App.-Tyler O'Neal State, v. 999S.W.2d826 1999, pet.). no (Tex.App.-Austin Martin TexasDeoartment Public 1998, pet.). no v. of Safety, S.W.2d772 964 pet.ref'd). Owenv. State, 905S.W.2d434(Tex.App.-Waco 1995, 2. EFFECT PREJUDICIAL PROBATIVE VALUEOF BT OUTWEIGHS

GiqliobiancoState, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App v. 210 2006). 637 properlyheld that evenin the absence In determining the trialcourtand Courtof Appeals of that retrograde extrapolation, afterthedefendant evidence twobreathtestsamplestaken minutes of 80 wasdrivingwhichread .09 and .092,the Courtof CriminalAppeals foundas follows: 1) probative force of appellant'sbreath fesf resu/fs was considerable,srnce fhose fesf resu/fs showedthatappellant consumed the hourspreceding breathtest,a substantial amount had the in of alcohol-enough tended alcoholtoraisehisbreathalcoholconcentration 0.09. Thisevidence to probableappellant'sintoxicationat the time he was driving,under either statutory to make more definitionof intoxication. 2) TheSfafebneedfor the breathfesfresu/fswasconsiderable, which sincethe Sfafe'svideotape showedappellantas quite lucid, tendedto contradictto some extent OfficerHeim'stestimony concerning appellant's appearance behavior. and 3) Thebreathfesfresu/fsdid not havea tendency suggesfdecision an improper basis. Ihe on fo fesfresu/fswerenot inflammatory any senseand they "relate[d] offense. in directlytothecharged 4) The breathfesf resu/fsdid not have a tendencyto confuse distractthejury from the main or issues because results the relateddirectlyto the chargedoffense. 5) Thebreathfesfresu/fsdid not haveany tendency be givenundueweightby thejury. Srnce to fhe Sfafeb expert testifiedthat the breath fesf resu/fs could not be used to determinewhat
84

d, appellant's breathalcoholconcentration at the timehe wassfoppe the trialcourtcouldhave was forceof thebreathtest reasonably the concluded thejury wasequipped evaluate probative that to resu/fs in TheCourtof CriminalAppeals not say thatbreathfesfresulfswill alwaysbe admissible the did jury was not givenadequate information with faceof a Rule403 challenge./f suggesfed that if a whichto evaluatethe probativeforce of breathfesf resu/fs,it mightbe reasonableto concludethat the admission suchevidence the of would posea dangerof misleading jury. lt furthersuggesfed thatif the fesf urasadministered an accused to severalhoursafterhe wasstoppedand the results wereat or belowthelegallimit,it mightbe concluded forceof thefesfresulfswas thattheprobative too weakto warrantadmission the face of a Rule403 challenge. in Statev. Mechler, S.W.3d 153 435(Tex.Crim.App.2005). Thisis a postStewart evidence breath of casewheretheCourtheldthatthe prejudice admitting of its testing machine results arrest not outweigh did takenone and a halfhoursafterdefendant's probative it value, so andthus results wereadmissible. Court heldeventhough mentioned The in theStatehadother to evidence intoxication maynothaveneeded results convict this the of and case. 3. (A OPINION) PREJUDTCE OUTWETGHS PROBATTVE R/IDTCULOUS

Statev. Franco, S.W.3d 180 2005,pdrrefused). 219(Tex.App.-San Antonio This arosefrom the Sfafebappealof a Motionfo Suppress in Blood Iesf Resu/fs an lntoxication Manslaughter/lntoxication Assaultcase. The factsin brief were that the crash was causedby defendant runninga sfop sign that he claimedhe did not see. Theoffenseoccurred 7:50p.m. at The testresu/fsin questionwere two bloodfesf resu/fs:one was takenat 10:05p.m. and wasa .07;thesecondwastakenat 11:55 that and wasa .02. Therewasa/soa PBT usedat the scene showeda .09. The Courtapplieda fourpart fesf as follows: 1) Whatis fheprobativevalueof the evidence? valueof theresu/fs TheCourtfoundtheprobative of Franco'sblood fesfs are significantlydiminished the two and four hour delayin obtainingthe by samplesand by the fact that both resu/fsare belowthe legallimit,and coupledwith the fact that therewas no extrapolation in evidence(thiswas heldproperlyexcluded thissameopinion).This factorwasfoundto go in the defendant's favor(? Addedby me). yet 2) Thepotentialto impress jury in someirrational indelibleway:ln its examination this of the lssue,the Court stated couldnot fathoma reason the Sfafefo introduce resu/fsshowing it for fesf bloodalcoholconcentration betowthe legattimitotherthan to invite thejury "to conductitsown crude retrogradeextrapolation," it admittedthat the lexas Court of CriminalAppealshas btrt rejectedthisargument Stewartwhich, until this was handed down, was the worst opinion (in to come out of San Antonio Court of Appeals). lt then concededthe resultsshowedthe defendant consumed alcoholand foundthatpart of the testfavoredadmission. 3) Thetime neededto developthe evidence:Thisfactora/so was foundto favor admission. 4) Theproponent's needfor the evidence: Courtthenfindsthe Statedidnot havea greatneed The for this evidenceas other evidenceshowed that officer smelleda strong odor of alcohol on defendant's breath,defendant swaying was and toldofficerhe dranka beer;theresu/fsof thefield sobrietyfesfsshowedsgns of impairment; videotape the scene,on whichdefendant sfafes a at he had beendrinking beerbeforethe accident; the and possibly resu/fsof theportablebreathtest
d5

(which hasnever beenfound to be admissiblein takenat the scenean hourafterthe accident court!?) all led the Courtto find the Statedoesnot have a greatneed for the bloodfesf resu/fs. Thisfactorthusweighsin favorof exclusion.TheCourtheld that bloodfesfresu/fswereproperly excluded. 4. UNDERKELLY,824 EXTRAPOLATION TESTIMONY ADMISSIBLE IS s.w.2D 573(TEX.CRTM.APP. 1992)

pet.ref'd.) Hartman State, S.W.3d v. 2 490(Tex.App.-San 1999, Antonio Interesting note both thesecasesinvolvedthe testimony expertGeorgeMcDougall, Bexar to of County BreathTestTechnical by Supervisor. Matacontains lengthydissent retiredChiefJustice a ts Cadenareviewingand challenging testimony Mr. McDougall(26 pages!). Thisdr'ssenf the of worthreadingas it constitutes kindof treatise (defense a oriented) theproblemswithretrograde of extrapolation. 5. EXTRAPOLATIONEVIDENCEIMPROPERLYADMITTED

Matav. State, S.W.3d 46 2001) 902(Tex.Crim.App. Ihis casehas senfbroadripplesthroughthe stateand there hasbeena greatdeal of discussion anddisagreement evidence.I am over itsmeaning impacton theadmissibility extrapolation of and Iessinclinedthan othersto believethat this opinion hasbroad and terribleimplications. What followsis a briefreviewof whatI interpretthisholdingto mean. The caseinvolvesthe muchtoutedSfafe'sexpertGeorgeMcDougallwho verymuch impressed the Courtof Appeals the Hartmancasecitedaboveand Courtof Appeals in opinionof this case. provedby clearandconvincing Ihe rssue beforethe Courtof Criminal Appealsr's whether State the evidence McDougall's that retrograde was extrapolation reliable. TheCourtheld that in this case it wasnot, and that the testimony the shouldhave been excluded.ln arrivingat thisconclusion, Courtis carefulto point out that it is not sayingextrapolation necessary the Sfafe fo prove a for is guiltyin a DWI or to get the resultsof a breathor blood test beforethejury. It also defendant explicitlyfindsthat "retrograde extrapolation" be reliablein a given case. lt a/sosefs whatI can believeto be a minimum threshold the typeof factors expertmusfbe awareof beforehe can for an givesuchan opinion. Ihose factsare: the lengthof timeover whichthe defendant wasdrinking, thetimeof hislastdrink,andthedefendant's I knowingthesefactors, dont believe weight. Without it wouldbe proper for an expertfor either sideto give an opinionon what the defendant'salcohol level wouldhave beenat the time he/shewasdriving. 6. IMPROPER ADMISSION EXTRAPOLATION EVIDENCE OF (a) NOTHARMLESS

Baqheri State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2003). v. 119 755 Thiswasa DWI casewhereextrapolation in evidence wasallowed overobjection.Onappeal,the Sfafe concededthat the extrapolation evidenceshouldnot have been admitted. The Courtof
86

Appeals foundthe errorto be harmfuland reversed. Oneargument madeby the Sfafeon appeal wasthattheTexas in ertrapolation. Legislature mandated jurorsengage retrograde effectively that pointingout the Statedid have to showbreathresults They did not agreewiththat argument are relevant. The Courtupheldthe Courtof Appeals reversalas it couldnot say that the erroneous admission retrograde of the extrapolation testimony not influence jury. lt did not address the did prove intoxication under the per se issue of whether retrograde extrapolation is neededto definition, (b) HARMLESS

(Tex.App.-Corpus for no designated Castor State,2011 5999602 v. 2011, pet.)(Not WL Christi publication). In holdingretrogradeextrapolationwas improperlyadmitted,the Court focusedon its belief that fhe Sfafebexpertdemonstrated inability apptyand explainit withclarityand didnot showan an to of appreciation the subf/efies of inherentin it. He knewno personalcharacteristics the driveror circumstances his alcoholconsumption.He alsoofferedno testimonyon the rate at which of alcoholis eliminated from the body. The Courtfoundthe errorto be harmless.The lessonhere is fo be thoroughin your direct of your expert. 7. EVIDENCEOF DRUG INGESTIONSTILL RELEVANTWITHOUT EXTRAPOLATION

Manninq State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2003). v. 114 922 Thiswasa manslaughter acfswasthatthe chargewherethe State allegedthatoneof thereckless in defendant consumed controlled of a subsfance.Theonly evidence thiswas the presence the The at bloodsample .15 mg. of a cocaine of metabolite knownas benzoylecgonine. testimony trial was this resultat bestshowedthat sometime beforethe accident,cocainewas ingested. The CourtofAppealsfelttheevidence not compelling shouldnot havebeenadmittedbecause was and the Statedid not extrapolate back to the time of the accident. The Court of CriminalAppeals reversedthe Court of Appealsand agreed with the Statethat the lower Court was confusing had sufficiency admissibility. evidence with The was stillrelevanttoshowcocaine beenconsumed by the defendant. 8. ADMITTED EXTRAPOLATION PROPERLY EVIDENCE

(Tex.App.-Dallas Sutton State,2011WL v. 3528259 2011). All thefactsin the chemist's that of hypothetical weretiedto characteristics defendant were here introduced evidence weight, timing the the of into appellant's during or known thechemist: trial to stop,the timingand results his breathalyzer the timingof his lastdrink,and the typeof of test, alcohol consumed. breath The an testswereadministered approximately houranda halfafterthe offense, the test indicates testswereperformed and of the withinthreeminutes eachother. The record showsno inconsistencieserrorsin the chemist's concerning retrograde the testimony or extrapolation saidtestimony properly and was admitted.
81

pet. 2008,reh.overruled, ref'd). Kennedv State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.], v. 264 372 [1 concerning Theonlyinformation knownto expefts this caseon whichfo basethehextrapolation in the defendant'sBAC at the time of the collisionwas his height and weight, the type and approximate numberof drinks,the timeof the crashand thetimeof thebloodtestwhichwasabout two hours and 15minutes afterthe crash. Theexpertwas alsotoldto rely on certainassumptions such as the time period over whichhe drank, when and what he last ate, the sizeof the beer consumed, and the fact that defendant was a "socialdrinker." The Courtheld it wasnot errorto admitthe extrapolation evidence. pet.ref'd). Fulenwider State,176S.W.3d v. 290(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2004, [1 characteristics and Theretrogradeextrapolation knowledge defendant's of experthad sufficient at behaviors renderreliableextrapolation defendant's to of alcoholconcentration time of alleged had offenseof DWI. Theexperttestified that shedid not know whendefendant her lastdrink,but gender, and defendant's did know the time of offense,time that breath fesfs urereconducted, had weight, timethatdefendant height,and lastmeal,and experthad basis whichto determine on prior to offense. her lastdrink,given eyewitness drinking testimony to defendant's as pdr (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] Peden State,2004WL2538274 v. 2004, ref'd). [1 knowingthe Retrograde extrapolation properlyadmitted thiscasebaseduponthe expert's was in followingdetails.Therewasa singlefesfresu/fan hourand forty-four minutesafterthesfop. She knew defendant's weightand whathe ate over a four hourperiodand that he did not have any minutes alcohol after 10:30whichwasthirty-five minutes beforethe stopandan hourandnineteen beforethe test resultof 0.12. Basedon this the expertconcluded that even if the defendant's wouldhavebeenover alcoholcontent hadpeakedat the timeof testing,hisalcoholconcentration 0.08at the timehe drove hiscar. pdr Bhakta State,124S.W.3d v. 2003, ref'd). 738(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.], [1 and TheCourtheld that fhe Sfafe'sexpertwas qualified testifyaboutretrograde extrapolation to he knew sufficientfactsabout the defendantto offer an opinion. In so holding,the Court that sfressed at not everysinglepersonal aboutthedefendant fh musfbe knownto an expertgiving fact prosecutionin orderto producean retrogradeextrapolation testimonyin a drivingwhileintoxicated extrapolation with the appropriate level of reliability. In this case,the factsknownto the Sfafeb expertwerethe timeof his lastdrink, hisweightandheight,the timeof thebreathfesfs,fheresu/fs of the breathfesfs,his lastmealprior to beingstopped,and the time of that meal.

db

9.

WITHOUT AFTER ARREST RESULT BLOODDRAWN 5/12HOURS OF RULE403 EXTRAPOLATION ADMISSIBLE UNDER

(Tex.App.-San Morales State,2012 1648366 v. WL Antonio 2012). ln this casetherewasa 5 % hourdelayin drawing to objected its admission bloodand the defense under Rule403. The Stateexpertadmittedhe couldnot and he did not attemptto extrapolate. prejudice TheCourtof Appeals underthese applied balancing andfoundprobative test outweighed facts. X. BEHIND THEINSTRUMENT! OPERATOR NEED NOTUNDERSTAND SCIENCE

Reynolds State, v. 204S.W.3d 388(Tex.Crim.App. 2006). In response the question whetherthe breathtestoperator neededto understand science the to of behindtheinstrument, Courtsaid:Thefact of certification sufficient meetthe Kellvcriteria is to the with respect the competence thebreathtestoperator.Thattheopponent theevidence can of to of demonstrate the operatorhasnot retainedall of the knowledge that that was requiredof him for certification a circumstance is of that goesto the weight,not the admissibility, the breath test resu/fs. As long as the operatorknowsthe protocolinvolvedin administering test and can the testtfythat he followed on the occasion question, neednot alsodemonstrate personal any it in he familiaritywith the underlyingscienceand technology. Y. FAILURE NOTETEMPERATURE TO 1. = OF REFERENCE SAMPLE BT EXGLUDED

(Tex.App.-San for Statev. Garza, 2005WL2138082 2005,no pet.)(not pub.). Antonio Trialcourtheldthatevidence lntoxilyzer resulfs that without testimony the of test was inadmissible lntoxilyzer's referencesamplewas operating a "known"temperature the time the fesf was at at was administered. Thetechnicalsupervisor it to testified wasreasonable inferthe temperature in range as he had checkedit beforeand after the test. The Courtheld that it was not abuseof discretion the trial courtto excludethe results. It distinguished casefrom Gamezon the for this basisthat the reference case waschecked daybeforeand the dayafterin Gamez, in fht's and the it was the weekbeforeand the weekafter.

2.

= OF REFERENCE SAMPLE BT NOTEXCLUDED

Scillitani State, v. 343S.W.3d 914(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2011). [14 In administering defendant's the intoxilyzer believing machinecheckedthe the test,the operator, temperature of beforeadministering testtoappellant, notcheckthetemperature a reference the did sampleon the intoxilyzer.He did conducta diagnosficfesf on the intoxilyzer,whichdid not identify
89

gave two breath samples, takenthreeminutes or indicateany invalidconditions; then appellant apart. Theintoxilyzer not indicateany malfunction. firstin an earlierhearing,the technical At did no supervisor saidregulationswere not followedbut later testifiedthat the currentregulations longerrequirethatthereference Courtheld testproperly sample takenat a knowntemperature. be admitted. 3. = OF SUSPECT REFERENCE & SAMPLE BT NOTEXCLUDED

for (Tex.App.-San v. 2003,no pet)(Not designated Gamez State, 2003WL 145554 Antonio, publication). provedthrough Sfafebexpertthatthe"Foxstudy"was in The Defense accurate itsfindingsthat fhe an elevated is runninga highfever(theSfafebexperf alcohol concentration result thesubject can if saidit wouldhave to be 4 % to 5 degreeselevated).On the basisof that answer,the defendant was not takenby the his tried to get the Courtto suppress breath test because temperature the prior to hissamplebeingtaken. TheCourtrejects argument findingthereis no such operator that failureto checkthe requirement the breathtesting in regulations.lt alsofoundthat the operator's reference sample temperaturewas not a basis for exclusion as the technical superuisorhad checkedit the day before and the day after the test, and both times it was at the correct temperature. XVIII. BLOOD TEST A. BELIEF'' STANDARD MANDATORY BLOOD "REASONABLE

1. MET for (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2004)(not designated Gattisv. State,2004WL 2358455 [14tn publication). officers Where severalofficersare involved,the sum of the informationknownto the cooperating belief that the at the time of arrestis to be considered determining there is a reasonable if in accidentoccurred a resu/fof defendant's intoxication. as Badqett State, S.W.3d v. 42 136(Tex.Crim.App. 2001). must Officer's"reasonable belief'thattheaccident occurredastheresultofdefendant'sintoxication driver. be basedon something involvedan intoxicated more than the merefact that the accident Rathertheremustbe specific articulable causedthe accident.That factsthat theintoxication and beliefmay be basedupon a numberof factorsincludingbut not limitedto: witnessinteruiews, by conclusions scene,determinations drawnfromexperience, observations madeat the accident reconstruction holding specific that reversed lowercourt's the team. TheCourtof Criminal Appeals evidence that "intoxicated" driverwas at fault was not required.

90

Broadnax State, v. 1999, pet.). no 995S.W.2d 900(Tex.App.-Austin ln this casethere was a high speedwreck in which a passengerin the vehiclewas seriously injured. After detecting of the alcoholon defendant's breathand considering circumstances the put himin custody, informed wreck,the officerdetermined defendantwas him and the intoxicated, a mandatory specimenwouldbe taken. Defendant blood warningand was read the mandatory consented the sample. Thesignificance the holdingis that withoutFSIs and evidence to other of than the circumstances the wreckobseruable the scene,the Courtheld that a mandatory of at bloodspecimen couldhavebeentakenand that the defendant's removedtheneedof the consent prove that statuteapplied. Sfafe fo pet.ref'd). Mitchellv. State, 821S.W.2d420(Tex.App.-Austin 1991, Courtheldofficerhad "reasonable receivedfrom and belief'basedon factsobserued information othersat the sceneof the accident. 2. NOTMET

Statev. Moselv, S.W.3d 348 435(Tex.App.-Austin 1). 201 Whereofficers the sceneof a crash notperformfieldsobriefy did at fesfson the defendant, not did observehim slur his speech,or have trouble maintaininghis balance,or do anythinge/se fo suggesfthathe wasphysically mentally thattheydid or impaired, wherebothofficerstestified and not forman opinionas to whetherdefendant wasintoxicated, did not read the DIC-24to him, and there wasinsufficient basisto arrestdefendant blooddraw was not proper. and a mandatory B. ARREST THEHOSPITAL AT 1. RESTRAINT WASSUFFICIENT

Gattisv. State, 2004 WL 2358455(Tex.App.-Houston for Dist.]2004)(not designated [14th publication). Thiswasan intoxication manslaughter was transported the hospital to casewherethe defendant wherean officerrequested for mandatory blooddraw. Thedefendant attacked legalbasis the the draw claimingthe defendantwas not under arrest at the hospital and as proof pointedout no chargewas filed at the time of the defendant's releasefrom the hospital. The Courtfoundthat whentheofficertoldthe defendant wasunderarrest, defendant restrained a hospital was to he the bed and that althoughthe restraint it a wasdonefor medicalpurposes, stillconstituted restriction of movement sufficient be perceived an arrest. to as 2. LATERRELEASE NOTNEGATE DID

Williams State,2OO4 v. (Tex.App.-Dallas for WL 434622 2004,pet. ref'd)(Not designated publication).

9L

(Tex.App.-Houston for Gattisv. State,2004WL 2358455 [14h Dist.]2004)(Not designated publication). Thefact that the officers,after obtainingthe blood sampleand learningappellantwouldnot be him releasedimmediately and released from from the hospital, decidednot to stay withappellant theircustodydoesnot affectthe conclusion appellant wasunderarrestat the timethe officers that requested sample. the C. BLOOD NOT DO MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS DRAWING FOR APPLY 1. WH E N D E F E NDANTCONSENTS

(Tex.App.-Austin 26,2005)(mem.op., designated Not for Dotvv. State, 2005WL 1240697 May publicaiton), pet. dism'd, improvidently granted, No. PD-1159-05, 2007 WL 841112 (Tex. m.App.2007XNot nated publ Cri for ication). desig pet.ref'd). Ramos State,124S.W.3d v. Worth2003, 326(Tex.App.-Fort Bennett State,723 v. no S.W.2d 359(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1987, pet.). Defendant's consenfto blood-alcohol relievedpolice officersof obligationto comply with test prerequisites compelling for bloodsample. 2. ARREST WHENDEFENDANT NOTUNDER IS

(Tex.App.-Tyler for Skinnerv. State.2006 WL 1420388 2006, no pet.) (Not designated publication). BlumenstetterState,135S.W.3d v. 2004,no pet.). 234(Tex.App.-Texarkana pet.ref'd). Ramos State,124S.W.3d v. Worth2003, 326(Tex.App.-Fort pet.ref'd.). Knislev State, S.W.3d478(Tex.App.-Dallas v. 81 2002, Nottinoham State, v. no 908S.W.2d 1995, pet.). 585(Tex.App.-Austin Burhalter State 642S.W 231(Tex.Crim.App. v. .2d 1982). , Aliffv. State,627 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 166 1982). Where suspecf was not under arrest,officer requestingblood sample be drawn from semiconsci s/unconsci s defendant j u stifi d by exig nt circum sta ces. ou n ou e e 3. CONSENT NOTINVOLUNTARY COERCED OR

Combest State,953 S.W.2d453 (Tex.App.-Austin v. 1997). On remand 981 S.W.2d958 (Tex.App.-Austin998).Sameholdinq. 1 Reading consentto DIC-24whendefendant not underarrestwill not per-semakesubsequent is give blood sampleinvoluntary.

92

(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007). v. Strickland State 2007WL 2592440 , be Ihis caseinvolvedan investigation an alcohol-related crash that wouldultimately charged of to consenf a blood of wasthevalidity thedefendanfb as lntoxication Assault.Ihe rssue challenged gave to the officer while at the hospital. The officerhad told the sample that he purportedly he defendant the timehe asked his consent if he refusedhis consent, wouldobtainthe at for that Thedefendantwasnotunderarrestatthetimethis bloodsampleasamandatorybloodspecimen. statementwasmade. lnupholdingtheconsent,theCourtdistingurshesfhiscasefromfhosewhere for an officer hascreatedand communicated fictionin order to coercethe consent a search. a Ratherit pointsout that the officer was insteadwarningthe defendantabout the reality of the whichwasin on situation. Thedefendantwassubjectto immediate arrest based the information the officer'spossessionat the time that representation was made and was, in fact, arrested immediatety of thereafter and withoutreferenceto the eventualresulfs the btoodtest. 4. READING D'C.24 EVIDENCE ARREST AS OF

Washburn State, v. 2007). 235S.W.3d 346(Tex.App.-Texarkana pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1994, Bellv. State,881 S.W.2d794 [14th Nottingham State, 1995, pet.). no v. 908S.W.2d 585(Tex.App.-Austin policeofficerreadthe DIC-24fo a suspect prior to askingfor a mandatory Where bloodspecimen. Thereadingof that form constitufes the suspecfwasunderarrest. someevidence that D. PROCEDURE TAKING FOR BLOOD SAMPLE 1. MAYUSEFORCE TAKEBLOOD TO OFFICERS

pet.ref'd). Burns State, v. 1991, 807S.W.2d 878(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi No due processviolationin involuntarymanslaughtercasewheretwo police officersheld downa defendant hospitaltechnician extracta bloodspecimen. for to 2. DEFENDANT SAMPLE FROMUNCONSCIOUS

Pesina State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.198a). v. 122 676 where Blood test evidencecollectedat requestof police officer in DWI casenot suppressible suspecfwas unconscious therewereexigentcircumstances. and 3. BLOODDRAW USEOF ALCOHOL SWABBEFORE

pet.ref'd). Kennemur State. v. 2008,reh.overruled, 280S.W.3d 305(Tex.App.-Amarillo pet.ref'd). Kaufman State, v. 1982, 632S.W.2d 685(Tex.App.-Eastland Useof alcoholsolutionto cleanseskinbefore test merely affectsthe weightof test and not its admissibility. 93

4.

TECHNICIAN'' A WHATCONSTITUTES"QUALIFIED (a) TECHNICIAN" MAY "PHLEBOTOMIST" BE A "QUALIFIED

1996pet.ref'd). Statev. Binoham,921 S.W.2d494(Tex.App.-Waco as technician" used in statutepermiftingonly Commonsense interpretation term "qualified of physician, qualified professional vocational nurse nurse, licensed or registered technician, chemist; purposeof determining of or presence controlled to drawbloodspecimen for alcoholconcentration phlebotomistwhom hospital other or subsfance uponrequestor orderofpoliceofficer, mustinclude job i.e., or medicalfacilityhasdetermined be qualified technical of venesection phlebotomy, in to drawingof blood. (b) MUST STILLBE SHOWN "PHLEBOTOMIST" QUALIFICATION

Torres State,109S.W.3d v. Worth2003,no pet.). 602(Tex.App.-Fort must the Because phlebotomisf not one of the occupations f'sfedin the Statute, qualifications a r's proven. Thoughshehad no formaltraining, witness for a phlebotomist the last had been be the 24 years. Shewascertified throughNPA. Shedrewbloodeverydayandhad doneso fhousands and thousands timesin her career. of 1998, pet.). no v. Cavazos State, Christi 969S.W.2d454(Tex.App.-Corpus to was Circumstantiat evidence bloodwasdrawnby a phteboiomist heldinsufficient support that of that he was qualified. ln this caseno one testifiedregardingthe qualifications the person the drawing blood,andno evidenceestablished thebloodwasdrawnby someone hospital the that qualified that task. ( Note: the gistof this holdingwas that this was a had determined be to for problemthat could have been cured by an additionalwifnesswho was aware of thispersonb qualifications.) (c) ONLYAPPLYlF RESTRICTIONS WHOMAYDRAWBLOOD ON IS ARREST SUSPECT UNDER

for (Tex.App.-Austin Blackwell State,2005 Wt 548245, v. 2005,no pet.) (Not designated publication). qualified (otherthanan emergency medical Restrictions say thatonly "aphysician, that technician vocational nursemaytakea blood technician), registeredprofessionalnurse, licensed chemist, or specimen the requestor orderof a peace officer"do not applywhenfhe suspecfrs nof under at arrestand the drawis not doneat the requestof a peaceofficer.

94

5.

BLOOD EMSPERSONNEL MAYNOTDRAWMANDATORY

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2012). Krause State,2012 1856536 v. WL [14 Ihis caseinvolveda mandatory was takento a hospital emergency btooddraw. Thedefendant room where hisbloodwas drawnby an emergency at medicaltechnician employed the hospital. The Courtheld that the emergency and regularly who workedin the hospital medicaltechnician performed personnel" wasthus and blooddrawsfell withinscopeof "emergency medicalseruices expresslyexcludedfrom statutorydefinitionof "qualifiedtechnician[s]" authorizedto take blood specmens withoutwarrantuponpolice request. Transportation CodeS_lZ4-9IJg-d.

The State will be asking for PDRon this controversial opinion. While it has always been clear that EMS personnel are disqualified, it is arguable (and my opinion) that an EMT working at the hospital is not the same as EMS personnel. lt is also worth noting that sometimes hospital personnelhave multiple qualifications and multiple titles so it would be good to be careful which title you focus on when directing non-nurse hospital medical technicians. (Tex.App.-Austin Statev. Laird, S.W.3d707 38 2000,pet. ref'd). Defendant wastakento hospitalfor mandatory to blooddrawbut whenhe refusedto consent the takingof the sample,whichwasproperly Code, requested under724.012(b) the Transportation of the hospitalstaff refusedto take the sampleon adviceof their riskmanager. Officerthen took defendant a nearbyfire stationwherea paramedicwho wasan "emergency to medicalservices technician," drew the blood sample. The blood was suppressed because$24.017(c)of the Transportation personnel" Code excludes"emergency ftom the list of people medicalseryices qualifiedto draw blood under that statute. The Statearguedthat the Court could and should properlyinferthat the legislature personnel from intended exclude medicalservices to emergency drawing blood only when they are respondingto an emergencysituation. This and other argumentswere rejectedin favor of followingunambiguous wordingof the statute.

E.

HOSPITAL RECORDS 1. ARENOTPRIVILEGED

Statev. Liendo, S.W.2d 980 1998, pet.). no 809(Tex.App.-San Antonio Statev. Hardy, S.W.2d 963 516(Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Knapp State,942 pet.ref'd). v. S.W.2d176(Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, Clarkv. State, 933S.W.2d 332(Tex.App.-Corpus 1996, pet.). no Christi Corpusv. State,931 S.W.2d30 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996),pet. dism'd,962 S.W.2d590 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Statev. Hurd, 865S.W.2d 605(Tex.App.-Fort no Worth1993, pet.). Thurman State,861 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist] S.W,2d96 1993 pet.). no [1st
95

Blunt State,724 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 79 1987). = no privilege SeealsoTex.R.Crim.Evid.509 physician/patient Courtheldthat defendant no rightto privacyin hospital has bloodtestrecordsand the Statecould jury subpoena. use sardrecordsthat wereobtainedby grand 2. OBTAINING RECORDS SUBPOENA BY

Tappv. State, 108S.W.3d 2003,pet.ref'd). 459(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th Garcia State, S.W.3d v. no 95 522(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2002, pet.). [1't Knapp State,942 v. 1997). S.W.2d176(Tex.App.-Beaumont records of As thereis no constitutionat statutoryreasonable or expectation privacyin hospitat of process. bloodfesfresu/fg a suspecfhasno standing complain defectsin the GJ subpoena of to Dickerson State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist] 618 v. Feb.19,1998), S.W.2d 986 965 30 [1st (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Thurman State, v. no 861S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1993, pet.). 96 [1st Properfo use grandjury subpoenato obtainmedicalrecords. 3. TO IN RELEASE DEFENDANT'S RECORDS RESPONSE OF HOSPITAL HIPAA A GJ SUBPOENA DOESNOTVIOLATE

-Austin 2007, pet.ref'd). Murray State, v. 245 S.W.3d (Tex.App 37 pursuant HealthlnsurancePortability Accountability (HIPAA)andprivacyrulepromulgated and Act to HIPAA did not overruleor preemptholdingin Statev. Hardy that a defendantdid not have an expectation privacyin blood-alcohol resu/fsobtained after an of solelyfor medicalpurposes test accident. An entity covered by HIPAA regulationsis express/yauthorizedfo disclose health information that is otherwiseprotectedunder HIPAA withouta patient'sconsentin numerous purposes pursuantto a grandjury subpoena. situations, including law enforcement for (Tex.App.-Texarkana (Notdesignated Jacoues State2006 3511408 v. forpublication). WL 2006) A hospital's release medical of recordstolaw enforcement permitted is underlimitedcircumsfances (20061. underHIPAA.45 C.F.R.Q a 164.512 authorizes hospitaltorelease a HIPAAspecifically patient's jury subpoena. C.F.R.5164.512(00)fi)(B). medical records response a grand in 45 to

96

4.

NO HIPAA VIOLATION HOSPITAL IN PERSONNEL TELLING POLICE BLOOD-ALCOHOL CONTENT WITHOUT SUBPOENA

Kirsch State,276S.W.3d v. 579(Tex.App.-Houston1 "t Dist.]2008)aff'd 306 S.W.3d738 [ (Tex.Crim.App. 2010). The defendant had been broughtinto the hospitalfor treatmentafter beinginvolvedin a motor vehicle physician collision.Theattending medicalpurposes ordered blooddrawandanalysisfor a whichshoweddefendant be intoxicated.Without requestfromlaw enforcement without to a and personnel defendant's consent, hospitat informed aboutthe results thebtood of Houston deputies -alcoholtest. Thedefendant triedto suppress evidence a violation HIPAA. TheCourtof the as of Appealspointsout that underHIPAA,a coveredhealthcare providerwhoprovidesemergency healthcare in responseto a medicalemergency protectedhealthcare information may disclose to a law enforcement officialif such disclosure to to appearsnecessary alertlaw enforcement the "commission natureof a crime." In affirmingthe denialof the motionto suppress, Court and the held that the defendant's blood-alcohol contentin this case suggesfedhe had committedthe offenseof DWl. The Court cites Kennemurv. State.2008 WL 1991730(Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008)in supportof thisholding. F. CHAIN CUSTODY OF REQUIREMENTS 1. BLOOD TESTED SAMEAS BLOODDRAWN IS

pet.ref'd). Lvnch State, v. 687S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo 76 1985, Can'trely solelyon medicalrecordsto prove blood test result. Sfafemusf furthershow: (1) a properchain;and (2) thatbloodtestedwassameas blooddrawnfromdefendant.In the absence of suchevidence, medicalrecordsare inadmissible. 2. TESTIFY NOTNECESSARY THATPERSON WHODREWBLOOD

Yeary State v. no Worth1987, pet.). ,734 S.W.2d766(Tex.App.-Fort It is sufficient officerfesfffiesshewitnessed blooddrawnby the nurseand any objections if to the failureto catl nurseto testifygo to weightand not admissibility evidence. of 3. GAPSIN CHAIN TO "WEIGHT'' NOTADMISSIBILIW GO

Patelv. State,2009 WL 1425219 (Tex.App.-Fort for Worth 2009,no pet.)(Not designated publication). Penley State,2 S.W.3d v. pet. ref'd). 534(Tex.App.-Texarkana 19Q9, pet.ref'd). Burns State, v. 807S.W.2d 878(Tex.App.-Corpus 1991, Christi Galleqos State v. .2d 1989, pet.). no ,776 S.W 312(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [1st Wherethe Stateshowsthe beginning and the end of the chainof custody,any gapsin the chain go to the weightof the evidence and not to itsadmissibility.
97

4.

NOTNECESSARY SHOWWHODREW TO THEBLOOD

(Tex.App.-Fort Hennessev State,2010 4925016 v. WL Worth2010). Admission hospital of bloodfesfresu/fsin defendant's withoutcallingpersonwhodrewblood trial did not violateHIPPAor the defendant's confrontation rights under Crawford. In this case fhe primaryemergency room nurse,the lab technician who testedthe bloodand the seniorforensic chemistfor ME'sofficeall testified that theyall have aboutstandard traumapatientcareincluding blood drawnin the same way. Blackwell State,2005 WL 548245,(Tex.App.-Austin2005, no pet.) (Not designated v. for publication). Hospital records with blood fesf resu/fs were admitted with BusrnessRecordsAffidavit. The defensecontested their admission because person whodrewthe bloodcouldnot be identified fhe and did not testify. The Statecalledthe surgeonwho treatedthe Defendant he could not but identifywhodrewthe blood. He saidthatalthough did not conductor obserue blooddraw, he the he and otherdoctorsroutinely reliedon suchprocedures recordsin treatingpatients.There and person wasnot evidence an unauthorized unqualified that or drewthe bloodor that it wasdonein an impropermanner. The results weretherefore hetdto be admissibte. Beck State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston v. 651 no 827 1983, pet.). [1"tDist.] Properchainof custodywasshownin admission hospital in of drawnbloodsample a manslaughter caseeventhoughphysicianwifnesscouldnot testifywho actuallydrewthe bloodsample. 5. THEBLOOD! NOTNECESSARY SHOW TO WHODREW TESTED OR

Durrett State, S.W.3d205(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.) 2001 no pet.). v. (14th 36 , Medical recordswereofferedto showdefendant's failed bloodwasdrawnand tested. Testimony to show who actuallydrew the blood and there was contradictory testimonyabout whetherthe Statehad shownwhoactually taken abouttheprecautions fesfedthe blood. Therewastestimony by the hospital ensurebloodsamplesare properlydrawn,labeledand tested. TheCourtheld to that the testimonywasadequateto link the blood resultin the recordsto the defendant and that proven. Thatwitnesscouldnot recallwho took the beginning and end of chainwereadequately the sampleand who fesfedff goes to the weightnot the admissibility the evidence. of 6. RECORDS PROVING HOSPITAL WITHBUSINESS BLOODRESULTS AFFIDAVIT

Desilets State 2010WL 3910588 v. (Tex.App.-Beaumont for 2010,no pet.)(Notdesignated , publication).

98

Thiswasa casewherethe Stateofferedthe hospital who took recordswithoutcallingthe person the blood specimen. The defensearguedthat violatedtheirright to confrontthe witness. The Courtheld that bloodresu/fsftom blooddrawnfor medicalpurposes are separate from the that purpose of criminal prosecutionare not 'Testimonial" because they are not made for the prosecution; establishing fact in a criminal rights werenot a confrontation therefore, defendant's implicated. pdr Goodman State, v. 302S.W.3d462(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2010, ref'd). Thiswasa casewherethe Stateofferedthe hospital in recordswithoutcallingthe person the lab whotestedtheblood. Courtheldthatdefendant's showinghisexcessive hospital bloodtestresu/fs blood-alcohol levelwerenon-testimonial, thustheiradmissrbn who withouttestimony person of and actuallydid the testing did not violate ConfrontationClausein defendant'sprosecutionfor third offenseof driving whileintoxicated. G. SANITARY PLACEREQUIREMENT

Adams State,808 v. no S.W.2d250,(Tex.App.-Houston 1991, pet.). [1"'Dist.] Defendant contends does that an inspection monthbeforethe blood wasdrawnat the hospital a not show the sanitaryconditionwhen blood was drawn. The statutedoes not require Such evidence.lt requiresthat "periodic" a inspection done,not an inspection the datebloodwas on be judge couldhave concluded drawn. Even withoutthe nurseb affidavit, trial that Sf. Joseph's the place,"thussatisfying firstpart of the statutory predicate. Hospitalwas a "sanitary the H. HOSPITAL DRAWN TEST SERUM.BLOOD

Wooten State, v. 267 S.W.3d 289(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2008). [1a Ihis case involvedan objectionto the admissibilityof a medicalblood draw result. Therewas a Kellyhearingand the caseprovidesa good discussion the wifnesses calledand the natureof of their testimony. The Courtupheldthejudge's decisionto admitthe resultsinto evidence. The Courtfoundit waswithinthe zoneof reasonable for the disagreement the TrialCourtto conclude Statemet the threeKellvfactors clearand convincing by regarding DadeDimension the evidence RXL. Accordingly,the Trial Court did not abuse its discretionin allowingappellant'sDimension RXLbloodalcoholresulfs the expertwifnesstestimony bloodfesfresu/ts or regarding appellant's to be presented thejury. to Biqon State, v. 252S.W.3d 360(Tex.Crim.App.2008). Defendant objected the state to of serumexperf festimony 3 concerning conversion appellant's the alcohollevelto a blood-alcoholleveland retrograde on extrapolation fhe basisthat saidtestimony wasnotreliable. TheCourtof Appealsheldboth were admissible. Courtof CriminalAppeals The held that it wasnot an abuseof discretion allow saidtestimony. to
99

pdr.ref'd). Reidweo State, v. 981S.W.2d 399(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, Objection admitting to as evidence serum-blood as opposedto wholeblood testoverruled of test evidence showedthat testinstrument wasstandardized fesf suchthat serum-blood result would be the sameas if wholebloodwere tested. I. = HOSPITAL DRAWN SAMPLE NOTAN ASSAULT

Hailev State, S.W.3d118(Tex.Crim.App.2002) denied, U.S.1060(2003). v. 87 cert. 538 Defendant was: 1) arrestedfor DWl. Theevidenceat the time of arresfshor,rred defendant that Bouncing guardrail; Crossing oncoming off 2) showed into at traffic;3) PBTadministered the scene an alcoholconcentration .337. Officer,fearingthere may be alcoholpoisoningtransported of defendant the hospital.Defendant readtheDIC-24andrefusedto givea sample.Hospital to was drewa medicalsamplethat showeda .454. Courtof Appeals held that bloodwas illegallytaken and that the takingof the bloodsampleconstitutedan assaulton the defendant the hospital by personnel. problemwasthatno wifnesswascalledfromthehospitaltosaywhythebloodwas The taken.The Court of Criminal Appealsheld that itwas improper for the Court of Appealsto reversefhe case basedon a theory not presentedto the trial court (that being the hospital assaulf r'ssue)and so reversed the Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court's finding that the blood samplewas admissible. Spebar State,121S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San v. 61 Antonio, September 2003,no pet.). 3, personnel Anothercasewherethebloodsamplewasdrawnby hospital refused afterthedefendant to give the police a sample. As in the case above, the defendantclaims the evidencewas inadmissible because was obtainedwhen the hospitalillegallyassaulted it him. Thisclaim was rejectedby the TrialCourt. Thedefendantcitesthe Courtof Appealsopinionin theHaileycase. TheCourtfirst distingurshes Haileyby pointingout that the trialjudgein itsruling statedthat this was not a case of law enforcement takinga bloodsamplebut ratherbloodtaken as part of the defendant's medicaltreatment. Courtfurther hospital The rejectsthedefendant's argumentthatthe personnelwereagentsof the Sfafe. J. ACQUIESCENCE HOSPITAL TO BLOODDRAW= GONSENT

Statev. Kellv, S.W.3d 204 808(Tex.Crim.App., 2006). ln response the objectionto the admissibility a medicalblood draw wherethe defendant to of objectedshenever "consented" the draw, the courtheld that an express impliedfindingof or to "mereacquiescence" the blooddraw alsoconsfitufes findingof consent the blooddraw. to to a

r_00

K.

SEARCH WARRANT FORBLOODIN DWICASE 1. IS P R OP E R

Beeman State, S.W.3d v. 86 613,(Tex.Crim.App. 2002).SeealsoDye State, v. 2003WL 361289 (Tex.App.-El Paso2003, pet.)(Not no designated publication). for 's Ihis caseinvolved rearendcollision a without injuries resulted thesuspecf arrest DWL that in for Afterthe suspect refused givea breathsample,the officergot a search fo warrantthatauthorized a bloodsamplebe drawnand saidsamplewas takenover the suspecf's objection.The issueon appealis whetherthe implied consent law prohibits drawinga suspecf'sblood undera search warrant. The Court of CriminalAppeals holds that it doesnot, pointingout that to interpretthe statutein that way wouldaffordDWI suspects moreprotection than other criminalsuspecfs. 2. SEARCH WARRANTAFFIDAVIT FAILED NOTE TO DATE/TIME STOP OF (a) NOT FATAL

Statev. Duqas, S.W.3d112(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 296 2009,pdrref'd). [14th ln this casetheblood search warrantaffidavitwaschallenged because failedto includethe time it the allegedoffenseoccurred.Argumentraised= no basisuponwhichthe magistrate couldhave determined whetherthedefendant's bloodcontained evidence a crime. TrialCourtsuppressed of theblood. ln reversingTrialCourt,the Courtof Appeals pointedout thatthoughtimeis not noted, it is undisputed offense rss that and uanceof warrant occurred same as warrant the day wassigned at 6:03 a.m.,leavingthe maximum potentialtime elapsed betweentraffic stopand warrantas 6 hoursand 3 minutes. Norwasit unreasonable magistrate have assumed, for to based factsin on affidavit, therewouldbe someevidence intoxication the defendant's that of in btoodwhenwarrant was signed. "The issueis not whetherthereare other factsthat couldhave or evenshouldhave beenincluded that affidavit;instead, focuson the combined in we logicalforceof factsthat are in the affidavit."CitesRodriouez State,232 S.W.3d55 (Tex.Crim.App. v. 2007). Statev. Jordan, S.W.3d 342 565(Tex.Crim.App., 29,2011). June The defensearguedthat theaffidavitdid not statethe date andtime when factsof offenseare alleged haveoccurred wasinsufficient givemagistrate to believe to so to PC bloodwoutd constitute evidence guiltat time warrantissued.TrialCourtagreedand suppressed of b/ood. Stateargued that because warrantwasissuedat 3:54a.m.on Junedh,the maximum amountof timethatcoutd have elapsed betweenstopand issuance warrantwas hours fifty-four of 3 and minutes. State cited Statev. Dusas. Courtof Appeals rejectedthat it was undisputed that offense and issuance of warrantwerein the sameday. Though statement affidavit officerwas, "l havegood reason in by to believethat heretofore, or aboutthe 6thday of June 2008... then and therecommitthe on did offenseof DWI," the Court finds this to just be a statementof the officer's"belief'and not a statement "fact"which distinguishes casefrom Duqas it holdsaffidavitdid not statethe of fhis as offensedate. Trialjudge suppression affirmed. Thisholdingwas reversedby the Court of is CriminalAppeals whichupheldthe warrant.In itshotdingthe Courtsfafesthat the four corners of
1_ 01_

probablecause, a warrantaffidavit have to be considered determine rejectingthe approach of to lowercourtwhichseemedto be testingthe introductory the and of statement the description facts separately. It held that the magistratecould infer that obseruations defendant'sconduct of occurredon the date specifiedin the introductorystatement and find that this was the date of offense.Magistrate wouldbe foundin had substantial of basisto determine evidence intoxication defendant's blood. Evidenceof any amountof alcoholor other controlledsubsfancecouldbe probativeof intoxication it is evidence into as fhaf suspectintroducedsubstance hisbody. (b) FArAL

v. (Tex.Crim.App.2011). Crider State, S.W.3d704 352 Affidavitin supportof searchwarrantto draw bloodfrom defendant, who had been arrestedfor probablecausethat evidence intoxication DWI, was insufficient establish to wouldbe foundin of defendant's bloodat the time the searchwarrantwasissued. Affidavitdid not statethe time that the officerconductedtraffic stopof defendant's vehicle,and nothingin the four cornersof the affidavitsuggesfedwhat time gap existedbetweendefendant'slastmomentof drivingand the moment the magistratesigned the warrant; such that there could have been a 25-hourgap betweenthe time the officerfirst stopped defendant and the time he obtainedthe warrant. 3. SEARCH WARRANTAFFIDAVIT LISTED WRONG THE YEARNOTFATAL

Schornick State,2010 4570047 v. (Tex.App.-Fort WL Worth2010). Thisinvolved warrantwheretheofficererroneously a 21 listed stopoccurred January , 2008, on the ratherthanJanuary31, 2009. At thehearingofficertestified it wasa clerical error. TrialCourt that deniedMTS. TrialCourtholdingwasaffirmed. 4. SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVITHAVING MULTIPLE CLERICAL ERRORS NOTFATAL

pet.ref'd). Salzido State 2011WL 1796431 v. (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, , Defense attackedwarrantbecause erroneous an date,June 7, 2008,was listedin warrant'sfirst wordparagraph thename"Hoover" and shouldhavebeen. appeared oncewherethenameSalzido He furtherpointedout the warrantaffidavitsfafedthe defendantwasaskedto performstandard field sobriety test drills (plural), when only one standard field sobriety test drill was performed (HGN). TrialCourtdeniedthe motion. In upholding warrant,the Courtreferredto the errors the in the date and name as clericalerrors based on the officer'sfailure to changenames in the template used. Theexplanation, thedefendant initiallyasked performdrillsandthat he that was to somewerenot later offereddue to backissue,adequately why that mistakewasnot a explained problem. Even withoutthe FST,therewas sufficient otherevidence supportthe PC. to

L02

5.

SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT FAILED SETOUTTHEBASISFOR TO THETRAFFIC STOPNOTFATAL

Huqhes State, v. 334S.W.3d 379(Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, reh.overruled). Defendantattacksthe affidavitfor failingto statethe specificarticulablefactsto authorizethe stop of the defendant.It alsofailedfo sfafehow the blooddrawwouldconstitute evidence DWI,and of complained about slashmarks that are not explainedin the part describing FSf's Language asseds that officerswore to affidavitbefore the magistratewhenin fact it was sworn to in front of an officerat station perjury. No exigentcircumstances who wasnotaryso the affidavitconstitutes warrantedtheintrusionofblooddraw. lnrejectingthatargument,theCourtexplainsthatthefailure to detailfactsregarding basisfor the sfopls not fatalto magistrate's fhe overallPC determination because issueis nof reasonablesuspicion detainbut ratherPC to authorize search. In fhe to a reiectingthe blood use argument,the Court finds that the magistrateis allowed to make a reasonable inference that bloodwouldbe analyzed presence alcoholfor usein prosecution for of of DWI. S/ashmarksare merely"l"sthat indicateofficerobserued thosematters. to theissue As of who it wasswornto, thisis judged to be extra wordingthat doesnot impactthe legalityof the warrant.TheCourtfurtherfindsthatno exigentcircumstances requiredto authorize warrant are a basedon PC for a blooddraw. 6. SEARCHWARRANTAFFIDAVITWAS NOTSIGNEDBYAFFIANT=NOT FATAL

Smith State, v. 207S.W.3d 787(Tex.Crim.App. 2006). Affiant sworebeforemagistrateand then failedto sign the affidavit. Themagistratedid not notice the omission signedthe SW. Courtof Appeals and heldfailureto signaffidavitdoesnot invalidate warrant. Court of Criminal Appeals agreed holding that the "purpose of the affiant's signature...memorializes fact that the affianttookthe oath;it is not an oath itself."Dictain the the opinionreferences some "andonecan that federalan statecourts nowpermittelephonic warrants foreseethe day in whieh searchwarrantsmight be obtainedvia email or a recorded video conferencewith a magistratelocated many miles away. ln state as large as Iexag such innovations shouldnotbe foreclosed therequirement a signedaffidavit officer's by of in oathwhich canbe memorialized otherequallysatisfying by means. Weleave thosepotentialfuture changes to the legislature." The Courtfurthernofes that forgetfulness carelessness formalities in or of affidavitmay affect credibilityof the officer. 7. SIGNATURE WARRANT ON NOTLEGIBLE NOTFATAL IS

Nquyen State,2010 2518250 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] WL 2010, pet.). no [14 In attackingthe btood searchwarrant,the defendant arguedthat because signatureon the the warrant affidavit wasillegible, warrant pointing the wasdefective.TheCourtrejectedthisargument out it is the act of swearingand not the signaturethat is essenfia/.Additionally, anotherofficer testifiedthat he and the magistratedid recognizethe signature.

103

8.

SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING MULTIPLE = ABBREVIATIONS THATWERENOTEXPLAINED NOTFATAL

Hoqanv. State,329 S.W.3d90 (Tex.App.-FortWorth2010). Attacked the warrant affidavit on the basis that it contained"conclusory and nonsensical statements." described lt was drivingpath of "IMP"withoutsayingwhatIMP is or that defendant drivinglMP. lt contains termsHGN,WATand OLSwithout.defining fhoseacronyms explaining or significance numberof clues. Doesnot stateofficeris qualified conduct of to FSfb or thathe has experience DWI cases. TrialCourtdeniedMTS. ln rejecting in fhesearguments, Courtfound the that there was sufficientevidenceto tie defendantto lMP. The description the clueson the of FSf's and other factswere sufficient show PC. Althoughit couldhave been more complete to about officer'sexperiencein DWI cases, such informationis not required to make affidavit adequate.CifesSwearinqen State,143S.W.3d808 (Tex.Crim.App. v. 2004).Whenreviewing a magistrate'sdecrsion.foissue a warrant,we apply a highly deferentialstandardin keeping with constitutionalpreference for a warrant. "Even in close cases, we give great deference to a magistrate's police officersfo use the warranfprocessrather determination PC to encourage of than makinga warranfless searchand later aftempting justify their actionsby invokingsome to exception the warrantrequirement." to 9. THE RELIABILITY IN OF THE FST'S DESCRIBED THE SEARCH = NOTFATAL WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AREATTACKED

Foley State, v. 327S.W.3d 907(Tex.App.)-Corpus 2010). Christi-Edinburg ln attackingthe affidavit,the defendantcontendsthat the FSf's mentionedwere not credible source of information regarding his intoxicationbecauseof his age being over 65. Court of Appeal'sresponseis fo assume that fhe FSfb describedwere not good indicatorsfor this defendant, butfoundthattherewereenough indicators intoxication susfarn to otherindependent of the warrant, 10. FA(ED WARRANT WHERE OATH WAS ADMINISTEREDBY MAGISTRATE AFFIANT TO OVERTHEPHONE (a) NOT FATAL

Clavv. State,2012 955323 (Tex.App.-Waco WL 2012). Thiswasa faxed warrant theoathadministered the phone.There with wastestimony the over at judgeand officer hearing that the voice. lt is undisputed the eachrecognized other's the that warrant notsigned the"presence" thejudge.TheCourt was in for of findsthisis nota problem the following reasons: Thefederal precedent 1) interpreting 4th a the Amendment notrequire face does to facerequirement regarding affiant the person the the and administering oath. 2) 18.01of the CCPalsocontains explicit no faceto facerequirement. The reliance thedictain theSmith 3) on caseis notcontrolling. support its holding, Courtpoints that"weshould standin In not of out the thewayof thefuturebydeclaring allaffidavits search that for warrants to sworn overthetelephone arenecessarily invalid. concurrence theadministering oathwasnota problem The finds the under the"good-faith reliance exception."
1-04

(Tex.App.-Dallas Swenson State,2010WL924124 v. 2010). Thisinvolved faxedwarrantand theissuewas that the officersworeto the oath overthephone a and then faxedthe warrant.At the hearingthe officertestified wasnevertold thatprocedure he was incorrect. The Trial Court deniedthe motion finding that the warrantwas properly sworn to and the "goodfaith" exceptionapplied. The Court doesnot addressfhe rssueof whetheran officer'stelephonic applies. oath is sufficient it findsthe "goodfaithexception" as (b) FATAL

(Tex.App.- Tyler 2011, pet. ref'd) (Not designated for Aylor v. State,2011 WL 1659887 publication). Ihrs case alsoinvolveda faxed warrantand a telephonic oath. Trial Courtheld warrantvalid. Pointing the dictain Smithcase,the Courtof Appeals to that concluded affiantmustbe physically present frontof magistrate officerauthorized administer in in oaths. TheCourtnotesthat this or to wasnot arguedby the Sfafe. case,unlikefhe Starenson citedabove,thegoodfaithexception case TrialCourtis reyersedand warrantheld to be invalid. 11. THE JURISDICTION COUNTY COURT IS OF THE STATUTORY ATTACKED AND FOUND BE LIMITED TO

(Tex.Crim.App.2012). Sanchez State,2012 1694594 v. WL policearresfedsuspect HarrisCounty soughtawarrantfrom Houston Court in Judgeof County and at Law of Montgomery is County. Thearrestwas County. Kingwood in Harrisand Montgomery in Harris. It wasduringa "No Refusal" a awayso thecopdrove weekend Montgomery few miles in 5 milesto MOCOratherthan 22 milesto Houston. Therssuepresentedwas whetherthejudge in of a statutorycountycourt,actingas a magistrate, may sign a searchwarrantto be executed jurisdiction JP's of a countyotherthanthe onein whichhe serues?TheCourtfirstpointedout that is limitedto county,and thejurisdictionof District Judgeis statewide. lt then held that County grantthem Courtsat Law do not havestatewide authority becausegov'tcode doesnot expressly thatjurisdiction,so the Courtheld that legislaturelimiteda statutorycountycourtjudge's authority Decision to actingwithinthe countyof the court. For this reasonthe warrantwas invalid. affirmed hy Court of Criminal Appeals. 12. SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT ATTACKED FOR HAVING TO PC INSUFFICIENT FACTS SUPPORT AND FORFAILING NOTE TO DATE/TIME STOP. OF (a) NOTFATAL

Wheat State,2011 1259642 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 2011). WL [14th Defendantchallengessufficiencyof byTrial affidavittoestablish PCthroughMTSwarrant.Denied
1_05

Court. Policereceiveda call from citizenthat describeddefendantrunningred light and then parkingalong sideof the road. Whenpoliceresponded call, they found vehiclerunningand to (2) defendant as/eep behindthe wheel. Deficiency arguedwere(1)notime reference, no wifness saw defendantoperating,(3) nothingto show when defendantconsumedalcohol,and (4) no pointingout there indication vehiclewasparkedin rightof way. Courtrejectedthosearguments if were sufficient details from which approximatetime could be inferred. The defendantwas still "operating" vehiclewhenthe officerarrived. No need to show whenalcoholwas consumed and irrelevantif vehicle was in right of way. (b) FATAL

Farhart State, v. pdr 337S.W.3d 302(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2011, ref'd). ln thiscasetheaffidavitwasattacked not containing for basis concluding Affidavit for PC. sufficient statedthe following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Defendantwasdriving30 mph in a 40 mph zoneat 12:50a.m. He was weavingfrom srdefo side. He continued left lane for half mile. in Turnedon rt turn signaland then turnedleft intoparkinglot. Uponstopping him, officersaw two pill bottles centerconsole. in Defendant refusedFSfs. Officerbelievedhe had commifted DWI basedon the erraticdriving,pillsin console personalobservations. and

ln reversingthe case,the Courtpointedto the fact that therewasno mentionin affidavitof what fhosepersonal obseruations were(i.e.odorof alcohol, bloodshoteyes,andslurredspeech).That contrary whatis sfafedin the findings fact,the recordshours to of onlythatpill bottles not pills and wereobserved no mentionof typeof pillsor that typewouldpointto intoxication. rejects and lt the TrialCourt'sinterpretation the testimony he drovein the left lanemeanthe wasdrivinginto of that oncoming trafficas the Courtdoesnot understand officerwouldnot haveimmediately why turned on lightsandpulledhim over. TheCourtfindsthe otherdrivingbehavior may be enoughtojustify reasonablesuspicion stopbut not PC. for 13. FAILURE SPECIFY TO WHATPOLICE INTEND DO WITHBLOOD TO = SAMPLE NOTFATAL

Statev. Webre, 347S.W.3d 381(Tex.App.-Austin2011). Policeofficer'saffidavitwasnot insufficient supportprobablecausefor drawof defendant's to blood for evidence that shehad committedoffense drivingwhileintoxicated of simply because affidavit did not detailwhatpoliceintended do withsampleafterit wastaken;magistrate to simplyneeded to determine therewasprobablecause thatevidence the offensewouldbe foundin defendant's of blood, and magistratecould have reasonably inferredthat samplesought wouldbe testedfor presence alcoholor otherintoxicants. of

r_06

14.

AS POLICE DEPARTMENT REGARDS JURISDICTION MUNICIPAL OF WIDE EXECUTION WARRANT COUNTY IS OF

Meadows State, v. 356S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana2}ll). 33 Police officer employedby home-rulemunicipalityhadjurisdiction to executesearch warrantfor was sampleof defendant's blood outsidemunicipality, within countyin which municipality but powerswerederivedfrom stateconstitution located, municipality's as ratherthanfrom statute, and warrantwas executableby any "peaceofficer"withjurisdiction throughoutcounty. 15. OF DETAILS ABOUT CREDIBILITY SEARCH WARRANT RELATING NOT AFFIANT NOTFATAL

Hughev State,2012 858596 (Tex.App.-FortWorth2012). v. WL Ihis case involves search did warrantfor btoodwhere thedefendantcontended thewarrant that a notprovidea reasonable basisfor the magistrate determine and that thereweremattersin PC to the affidavitthat werenot true. The Stateconceded that the affidavitdid not includeinformation about the credibility the vuifness the bad drivingor the fact that he was an off-dutypolice of to officer and doesnot specifythat only Riveraand not the officer witnessed bad drivingand the redactedby agreement some oral statements referredto in the affidavit. The Courtfound that none of what was referredto as inaccuratestatements was intentionaland that even if all the drivingfactswereredacted,the affidavitstillsupported magistrates findingof PC. the L. DIC.24NEEDNOTBE READBEFORE BLOODDRAW MANDATORY

pet.ref'd). Enriquez State, S.W.3d v. 56 596(Tex.App.-Corpus 2001, Christi Motoristwas not entitledto statutorywarnings(DlC-24)beforeofficerrequestedthat motorist submittobloodtestwhenofficerhadstatutory groundsfor compelling bloodtest. TheCourtwent a on to say that a requirementthat appellantbe admonished the statuterequireswould be as surplus. M. ONLYONESAMPLE MANDATORY BLOODLAW MAYBE DRAWN UNDER

Statev. Neeslev,196 S.W.3d 356(Tex.App..-Houston 2006,pdrgranted). [1"'Dist.] Reversed Statev. Neesley, S.W.3d 239 780(Tex.Crim.App.2007). This anintoxication is manslaughter in whichthe policesubsequent arresthad mandatory to a case give a sample. Theproximityof bloodspecimen drawnby a nurseafterthe defendant refusedto the first blood draw to an intravenoussalineline causedthe first sampleto be dilutedso that anothersamplewasdrawnat the officer's the attacks requestaboutan hourlater. Thedefendant Iegalauthorityforthesecondblooddrawand themotionto suppress fhoseresu/fswasgrantedby the trialcourt. The Stateraisedfour reasons why the results the secondblooddrawshouldbe of admitted. Ihose werethat (1)probablecauseand exigentcircumstances the authorized second
L01

(2) compliance; the statutory drawing appellee's of bloodwithouta warrantand withoutadditional blood was drawn primarilyfor implied consentstatuteis not applicable becausedefendant's purposes,' section724.012(b) the Transportation (3) Code(impliedconsentstatute) treatment of specimen;and (4) the second allowsfor the taking of multiplespecfnensto obtaina "usable" precluding needfor additional the drawingof blood wasa continuation the initialbloodsample, of was for authorization the second blood sample.TheCourt'sresponse thatthe Statewaiveditsfirst fwo rssuesfor review, that section724.012(b) allows for the taking of a singlespecimen,the the continuation-search theoryis not applicable. The Courtdistinguished casesthat the State presented supporting takingof multiplesamples being basedupon section724.012(a) as the as as opposed section to 724.012(b). TheCourt of Criminal Appealsreversedholding that "specimen" is to be construedto mean a "usable" specimen- rn essence adopting Sfafe's argument number three listed above. Itfurther held that underthe section cited aboveonly one usable specimencould be drawn. N. CODE WHENDEFENDANTCONSENTS. TRANSPORTATION DOES T24.O12OF NOTAPPLY

Subirias State, v. Antonio 2009,pdrref'd.). 278S.W.3d 406(Tex.App.-San in and two Ihis case involves defendant who wasinvolvedin a wreckthat resulted two deaths a blooddrawbut SB/'s. A total of threeblooddrawsweredone;he was arrestedafter the second blooddraw and beforethethird. He challenged firstblooddrawas beingpre-arrest, thesecond the onlya singleblooddraw. as beingin violation Transportation allowing of CodeSecfion724.012(b) The evidenceshowed he consentedto both blood draws and the Court held that when one consenfg 724.012doesnot apply. He furtherobjectedto the first and secondblood drawsas beingin violation Rule403 of the TexasRulesof Evidence that wasrejectedafterapplying and of was extrapolation sixfactors go to that issue.Theattackon thereliability theretrograde the that of alsorejectedbasedon the factsof this case. ln hisfinalpoint,he arguedthat the medicalblood qualified do so under fo drawshouldhavebeensuppressed it because wasnot takenby a person Transportation whileconceding medicalblooddrawsare not requiredto meet Code724.017 that to the standards forth in section724.107, arguedthey should stillbe applicable ensure sef but reliabilityof saiddraws. Ihis issue was not properlypreservedfor review. O. THE UNDER OFFICER BLOOD DRAW PROCEDURE "NOTUNREASONABLE'' IS 4TH ENVIRONMENTUPHELD AMENDMENT NON-MEDICAL AND

201 (Tex.Crim. Oct.3, 1 Cert.denied Statev. Johnston2011WL 891324 App.,March16,2011). , warrantfor Defendantwas arrested Dalworthington PoliceDept.for DWIanda search by Gardens was obtained. Suspecfresrsfedblood draw and was restrained. Resu/f= .19. At MTS blood hearingthe Trialcourt foundthat the blood draw was done by recognized medicalprocedures, force usedwas reasonable, officer who did the draw was not quatifiedunder 724.017of but Transportation Code and the seizure of defendant'sbloodviolatedthe 4 th Amendment's reasonableness requirement not being taken by medicalpersonnelin a hospitalor medical by environment. Codedoesnot apply,heldit wasnot Courtof Appeals confirmed Transportation that
108

a problemthatbloodwasnot drawnin medicalenvironment, madeno findingthatofficerwas and ln not qualified. Under4hAmendment foundthe means usedwerenot "reasonable." so holding for no the Courtmentions medicalhistorytaken,no videorecording, writtenguidelines useof no policeofficerdoesnot disqualify an force.Courtof Criminal Appealsreversed holdingthatbeinga qualifiedperson otherwise that the officerin this case fromperforming blooddrawafter stating a was demonstrated the recordto be qualifiedto do so. It further statedthat whilea medical by under is are environment idealforsuchdraws,that does meanthatothersettings unreasonable not the 4h Amendment and the setting thiscase wasproper. in P. TO FAILURE ASK PROPER BRING TO DEFENDANT'S OUTIN QUESTIONING TO RETEST BLOODSAMPLE

(Tex.App.-Beaumont 0). Schmidt State, v. 2010WL 4354027 201 Prosecutor's access elicitingtestimony from State'schemistthat the defensehad not requested to the bloodsampleto perform itsown testingwasnot improper wasit an attemptto shiftthe nor burdenof proof. The Courtpointedout that generally, Statecan commenton a defendant's the failureto present from the evidence hisfavorand even commenton the absenceof evidence in defense /ongas saidcommentrefers evidence so own to otherthana defendant's testimony.They furtherheld thisquestionwasa proper response the defensequestioning the wifnessabout of to how the sample was preserued. O. TESTIMONY ABOUTDRUGINGESTION ANDITSEFFECTS 1. IMPROPERLY ADMITTED

Delane State,2012WL340234 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2012). v. [1$ Officer who was not certified DRE was not qualifiedto give testimonyregarding the effect prescription defendant's medication wouldhaveon hisdriving.Theerrorof allowingsaidtestimony calledfor reversal. The Court cited Laytonand relied upon it withoutdistinguishing fact that the fhis case, unlike Layton, allegedintoxicationwithoutspecificationof limitationwherepart of the reasoning behindthe reversalin Lavtonwas that it just allegedalcohol. Layton State, v. 280S.W.3d 285(Tex.Crim.App. 2009,reh.denied). Thedefendant taking objected the admission theportionof the DWI videowherehe admitted to of listedin the Valium andXanaxas irrelevant.(lt shouldbe notedthat the definition intoxication of information this caseallegedonly "alcohol" in intoxication).ln reversingthe case,the Courtof CriminalAppeals requiredto admit held that withoutexperttestimonyto providethe foundation scientificevidence,the testimonyregardingAppellanf'suse of prescriptionmedicationswas not shownto be relevantto the l'ssue his intoxication. of

r_ 09

2.

ADMITTED PROPERLY

(Tex.App.-Dallas 2012). v. WL Armstrono State,2012 864778 Ihis case involveda DWI defendantwho blew 0's and admittedto taking half a Xanax, the about the presence whichwas confirmed a blood test. An officerand a chemisttestified of by effectsof saiddrug on driving. ln upholdingthe admissibilityof saidtestimonyand distinguishing The Delaneand Layton.the Courtfocused the following: officerin fhiscasewasa DREand the on ingestedand the effectit wouldhave on the of chemistdemonstrated understanding the drug an Therewasevidence the dosageandaboutthedrug'shalflife. ThisDWI case,unlike defendant. of by Lavton.did not involvea chargelimitedto intoxication alcohol. XIX. EXPERT TESTIMONY A. = .08 TESTIMONY = LOSSOF NORMAL PROPER STATE EXPERT OPINION

pet.ref'd). Longv. State, Worth1983, 649 S.W.2d 363(Tex.App.-Fort Adams State, v. 808S.W.2d250(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1991 no pet.). , [1st even is Experttestimonythat = "lossof normaluseof mentalandphysicalfaculties" admissible, .08 thoughintoxication definedas .10 or greater. is B. - PR|OR (JOHNCASTLE) TESTTMONY TMPEACHMENT

pet. v. Worth 1gg7, ref'd). Sparks State, 943S.W.2d 513(Tex.App.-Fort of It wasproper for Stateto impeach defenseexpertJohn Castlewith circumsfances hisprior pointedout that an inthe in testimony a CollinCountytrial, Statev. Lucido. Namely, prosecutors certain to courtexperiment theIntoxilyzer with demonstrated contrary hisexpertopinion, that 5000 foods,chewinggum, and medications not affectthe testresu/fs. did C. EXCLUDED EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUTDWIVIDEOPROPERLY

for Plattenv. State, 2004 WL 100399(Tex.App.-Tyler2004, pdr ref'd) (Not designated publication). as Defense attemptedto call Dr. Gary Wimbish,a toxicologist, an expert wifnessto testifythat he performance theDWIvideo. on believed defendantwas intoxicated not uponthedefendant's based Therewereno FSIs on the tape. Though Wimbish Dr. testifiedin a Dauberthearingthat his principlesthathad opinionsdrawnfromviewingthe on fapeswere based independentlyrecognized been studied,appliedand peer reviewed,he admittedthat none of fhose appliedto situations wheretherewereno FSIs. He furthercouldnot citeany scientifictheorysupportingthe conclusion and that intoxication be determined can solelyfrom the viewingof a videotape he couldnot refer the Court to any literatureon that proposition. TheAppellate Court found the exclusionof this as was excludable it wouldnot testimony testimonywasproperand furtherfoundthat Wimbish's juror. be outsidethe knowledge and experience the average of
110

D.

ALCOHOLISM TO DOOR DEFENDANT'S EXPERT OPENED DEFENSE

(Tex.App.-Eastland, 2006). Manor State, V. 2006WL2692873 pufting forth the defensethat what appearedto be srgns of In responseto the defendant's and was actuallya symptomof her sufferingfrom depression havinga panic attack, intoxication was allowedto rebut this theoryby putting on evidencethat she a/so sufferedfrom the State In tothe attackthattherewasno 404(b)notice,the Courtheldthat because alcoholism. response and in introduced cross-examination not theevidence alcohotism whichManorcomplainswas of of noticeto Manorof itsintent to in the Sfafe'scase-in-chief, Statewasnot required giveadvance the to introduce suchevidence. E. EXCLUDED PROPERLY EXPERIMENT EXPERT'S RESULTS DEFENSE OF

designated (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2007 no pet.)(Not v. WL Noves State 2OO7 470452 , , [14th publication). for conducted experiment aboutan out of courtdrinking Defense fromtestifying expertwasprecluded wassubstantially failedto affirmatively showtheproposedexperiment on defendant.Defendant the in the simitarto the incident and, thtJs, trialcourtdid not abuseitsdiscretion excluding results. XX. DEFENSES A. ENTRAPMENTDEFENSE

pet.ref'd). Paso1985, Evans State, v. 112(Tex.App.-El 690S.W.2d stopped No entrapmentwhere is defendant allowedto driveto stationby policeand subsequently againand arrestedfor DWI. B. NECESSITY DEFENSE

pet.ref'd). Worth1996, Shafer State, v. 885(Tex.App.-Fort 919S.W.2d wasthatonce argument instruction.Defendant's Trialcourtproperlyrefused give "justification" fo to in sherealized wastoointoxicated drive,she wasTustified continuing driveuntil shefound to she a safeplaceto pull over. Sadly,she urasstoppedand arrestedbeforethatpoint. Courtreiected and pointingoutit washer own voluntary conductthatcausedher to be intoxicated thisargument, havingdoneso wasnot entitledto necessity defense. for (Tex.App.-ElPaso2005,no pet.)(Notdesignated Rodriouez State,2005WL 2313567 v. publication). wason hisway to pick up hisin-labor wife and takeher to the hospitat. Opinion Defendant
LL1"

therewasno evidence assumes necessity fhaf defense be raised, notraisedherebecause can but that defendantfaced an urgent need to avoid harm that outweighedthe harm sought to be prevented drivingwhileintoxicated.Also,thisdefendant not admitthe offense. did by (Houston Dist.] 2004, pet.). no TexasDepartment Public Of Safetv Moore, S.W.3d270 v. 175 [1't Defendantfled scene of altercationafter being threatenedwith a gun which was fired; the defendant droveaway,but continued driveafter the threatfrom whichhe fled ceasedto exist to declining rule on whether to by returning the sceneafterthepolicearrivedthus,whileexpressly to necessify was initially implicated, this defense was not establishedregarding defendant's subseguent conductas a matterof law. (Notdesignated for (Tex.App.-San 2002, pet.) no Moncivais State,2002WL1445200 v. Antonio publication). Defendantwas victim of continued assaultand got into her vehicleand drove to escapeher did aftacker.Defendant instruction because not admitshe was heldnotto be entitled necessity to intoxicated night of offense. on for (Tex.App.-Corpus Torres State, v. 2000,no pet.(Notdesignated 2000Wt34251147 Christi publication) belief defendant's An lntoxication Manslaughter not case.Held necessity defense raisedbecause that sheneededto drive whileintoxicated from coasffo SanAntonioafterbeingin a fight with a friend/police officerwas not objectively reasonable. The Courtheld that even thoughdefendant person at fearedthe who assaulted "might" her followher;thefactthat shestopped a convenience following at any her storein Victoria gas and madea telephone and did not seeDunaway for call time; sheintendedon traveling allthe way back fo SanAntonio;shemadeno attemptto contact to anypoliceofficeroutsideof Point Comfort; and shemadeno attemptto stopanywhere spend did the night,eventhoughsheknewshe wasintoxicated, Courtto concludethissituation not led involveimminent harm. for Bjornson State,1996 1996, no pet.) (Not designated v. WL 627374(Tex.App.-Austin publication). Necessifydefenie notraisedbecause to beliefthathe needed drivewhileintoxicated defendant's reasonable. to lookfor hismrssrng was asthmatic five-year-old not objectively C. INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION DEFENSE/INSTRUCTION

for (Tex.App.-FortWorth2009,pet ref'd)(Notdesignated Spence State,2009WL 3720179 v. publication). ln the benchtrial of this case,the defendant admittedto havinga smallamountto drinkbut said
L1-2

with waslnconsistent her shethoughtsomeonemusthavedrugged as the amountsheconsumed put on of anotheryoungwoman was intoxication the observed atthe time of the stop. Testimony beyondthe suspect but whowasdrugged and assaulted thatsameestablishment, no evidence at assumptionwas offered to support that somethingwas put in her drink. ln supportingthe in conviction spiteof the trial court'sfindingat the time of the convictionthat the driver'sintoxication act was"involuntary," Courtof Appeals held thiswasnot a findingof an involuntary and didnot the was not a defenseto DWI and the trial intoxication supporta defense DWL Srnceinvoluntary to courtupheldthe conviction, is plain that the courtdid not intendto find that shewasintoxicated it the as the result an involuntary the of act. Moreover, recordsupported findingthattheintoxication was not the resultof an involuntary act; thus, a rationaltrier of fact could have found that the doubt. evidence was sufficient establish elements DWI beyonda reasonable of to the pdr reh.denied, ref'd). Brown State. v. 290S.W.3d 247(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2009, Defendantclaimedhe had two drinksbeforehe wentto bed, then wokeup and tookAmbienby any of had no recollection consuming mistakeinstead hisbloodpressurepills,and as a result, of jury instructionon "lnvoluntary more alcohol that night and didn't recall driving. He asked for a in Intoxication." wouldneverbe available a DWlcase as The Courtheld that suchan instruction thereis no mentalsfafe. pet. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2000, ref'd). Bearden State, v. 2000WL 19638 [1st Defendant him testified trialthatsomeone musthaveslipped a drugthatcausedhisintoxication at arguingthat an individualwho andrequested defensive instruction "lnvoluntary lntoxication" a on conduct is unawareof the administration mind-altering drugscannotengagein the intentional of voluntarily of operatinga motor vehicleany more than a womanunderthe influenceof drugs can individuals who have intoxication, consentto sexualactivity. Absentthe defenseof involuntary penalized.TheCourtrejectedthisargument beenthe victimof an assault drugswillbe unjustly by of findingthat the Legislature not seenfit to includea culpable mentalstatein itsdefinition the has Intoxication cannot offense. TheCourtciteda numberof decrsions haveheldthatInvoluntary that applyor did not applyto the factsof a case. ln fhis casethe Courtfoundthere wasno evidence consume of any drugbeingaddedto appellant's that he did not voluntarily beer and no evidence the beer he drankthat night. for (Tex.App.-Dallas designated 2003,no pet.)(Not Stamper State,2003 WL 21540414 v. publication). requestpointingout that instruction ln this casethe Courtaffirmedthe rejectionof an involuntary what shereally seemedto want is an instruction involuntary which she did not properly act on request.Thecourtfoundinvoluntary in intoxication not applicable thiscaseso thelowercourt was justifiedin denying requested was her instruction in refusingto let a defenseexperttestifyon and fhls rssue.

1 t_3

no Nelson State,149S.W.3d v. 206(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2004, pet.). Thiswasa DWI whereintoxication drugs. Thedefense arose fromdefendant's takingprescription requestedan instructionon "involuntary intoxication" and the court affirmedthe denial of that requestholdingthat the defenseof involuntary intoxication does not apply fo personswho are unconscious se/nFconscious the time of the allegedoffensenor does it apply when the or at defendant's mentalsfafeis not an elementof the allegedoffense. Aliffv. State, 955S.W.2d no 891(Tex.App.-ElPaso1997, pet.). on Defendantwas intoxicated due to ingestionof prescription drugs. He wantedan instruction "involuntary intoxication" and that requestwas rejectedon two grounds. First,there was no or evidence the recordindicating in drugs unknowingly, that the defendant took the intoxicating is withoutknowledge their effect. Second,involuntaryintoxication a defenseto criminal of for culpability and proof of a culpablementalsfafe is not requiredin prosecutions intoxication offenses,including driving while intoxicated. McKinnon State, v. 709S.W.2d Worth1986, pet.). no 805(Tex.App.-Fort Defendanttestifiedsheonly had two g/assesof wine and that she "blacked out." She does nof believethiswascausedby the wineand thoughtthattheman whoservedher the winemusthave slipped because there something her drink. TheCourtheld shewasproperly in deniedthedefense is no evidence any drughavingbeenaddedto appellant's that of wineand no testimony appellant did not voluntarily consumethe wine. (Tex.App.-Corpus Curtin State, v. 2006WL347025 2006, pet.). no Christi Defendant wasarrestedfor DWI afterhe causeda trafficaccident and hisbreathtestshowedan from alcoholconcentration 0.243.Defendant suffered that of and hisphysiciantestified defendant traumatic amnesiaat the time of the accident. Thiswas allegedly causedwhenhe was struckin the headby a bar patronearlierthat evening. Defendant drankrn excess claimshe involuntarily on because the effectsfrom the blow to his head. In approvingthe denialof an instruction of mental involuntary intoxication, Courtfoundthat the defensedid not applyas the defendant's the sfafeis not an elementof the allegedoffense. D. INSANITY/AUTOMATISM

Nelson State,149S.W.3d v. no 206(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2004, pet.). The defense in is triedfo usethe defenseof automatism. Automatism definedas "engaging what would otherwise be criminal conduct but is not criminal conduct if done in a state of unconsciousness semi-consciousness." Courtfirst pointsout that Texascourtshaveheld or The fhafsfafesof unconsciousness automatism, including sfafes,fall withinthe defenseof or epileptic insanity. It then says insanitydefensewill not stand for an offenselike DWI wherethereis no mentalstate. Withthe defense act argument it is focusing thelackof a voluntary as a basis that on
1-1-4

for itsdefense, Court replies the that thereis nothingin the recordto showthat the defendant did not make the decisionto get in his car and drive and that he did take the prescription drugs voluntarily,knowingtheir effect, which bars his claim of involuntaryconduct. Beasley State, v. pet.ref'd). 810S.W.2d 838(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1991, Thedefendant admitted havinga few drinksbut attributed signsof intoxication her body's to her to reactionto her runningout of her prescriptionwhich she sardcausedher to be in a stateof a trance-like high. The Courtaffirmedthe denialof an instruction insanitypointingout that the on focus of the insanitydefenseis clearlyupon the mental stateof the accusedat the time of the offense and because thereis no mental statein a DWI case.that defensewill not stand.

Aliffv. State, 955S.W.2d 891(Tex.App.-El Paso1997, pet.). no Defendantwas intoxicateddue to ingestionof prescriptiondrugs. He wantedan instruction on insanitydefense.TheCourtheld that insanityis not availablebecause convicta defendant for to drivingwhileintoxicated, nof necessary prove a culpable itis mentalsfafe;therefore, insanity to cannotbe a defense the chargeof drivingwhileintoxicated. to E. ACT''INSTRUCTION "VOLUNTARY 1. NO

Howevv. State,2009 WL 264797(Tex.App.-Dallas for 2009, no pet.) (Not designated publication). Thedefendant admittedto havingno morethanthreedrinksat trial,and testified had left her she drinkunattended "musthavehappened"to atthe bar and thatsomething alterher as muchas she wasat the timeof the sfop. She alsoclaimed gapsin her memoryin events thatnightafter she of Ieft the bar. Thedefenserequested chargeunder6.01of the TexasPenalCodeof "Voluntary a Act" underthe theorythat something must have been added to her drink. In affirmingthe trial court'sreiectionof that requestedinstruction,the AppellateCourt relied on the fact that the defendant not admit shecommitted charged did the or offenseand thelackof evidence testimony put that someone something her drink. Beforethe defendant entitledto such a chargeon in is "voluntariness conduct," of theremustbe "evidence an independent event,suchas conductof of a thirdparty that couldhaveprecipitated incident." the 2. YES, INSTRUCTION INVOLUNTARY ACT SHOULDHAVEBEEN ON GIVEN

Farmerv. State,2011WL (Tex.App.-FortWorth 1601311 2011). Reversed remanded2011 and (Tex.Crim.App. WL 4072126 (Notdesignated publication). 2011) for

r t-3

4n-

Whereevidence voluntarily took pillslaid out for him by hiswife but suggesfs that the defendant wasnot awarethat one of the pillswasAmbien,he shouldhavebeenalloweda chargeto thejury on the issue of "voluntary act." The Court did not addresswhethersuch an instructionwould constitute commenton the weightto be giventhe evidence that argumentwasnot raisedin a as thisappeal. XXI. JURYCHARGE A. PERIOD OBSERVATION 1. NO CHARGE REQUIRED

pet.ref'd.). Adams State, S.W.3d v. 450(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2002, 67 no Davis State, v. Antonio 1997, pet.). 949S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 28 pet.ref'd). Rayv. State 1988, Antonio 939(Tex.App.-San ,749 S.W.2d jury for before Notrequired charge thatdefendant continuously 15 minutes to needs be observed to theycan considerlntoxilyzer test result. 2. CHARGE REQUIRED

pet.ref'd). v. Smithey State, 204(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1993, 850S.W.2d pet.ref'd). v. Garcia State, Paso1993, 874S.W.2d 688(Tex.App.-El granted, pet. 810 improvidently Gifford State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 793 48 1990), dism'd, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 225 1991). B. = ALTERNATIVE CAUSATION NO CHARGE 1. IN GENERAL

Neaves State 767S.W.2d784(Tex.Crim.App. v. 1989). , impropercommentbyjudge on Chargethat singtes timitedpartsof the evidenceconstitutes out possibilitythatdefendantreceived weightof evidence. Inthiscase notentitledtocharge concerning a blow to the head the resu/fsof whichthe officer mistook signsof intoxication. for Grissett State, v. 571S.W.2d 922(Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Defendant entitled jury instruction another"causation" factoronlvwhenhe: (1) deniesuse is to on + (2) can explainhis suspectactions. of alcohol

1L6

2.

FATIGUE

pet.ref'd). Drapkin State,781 (Tex.App.-Texarkana v. S.W.2d710 1989, Whendefendant claimsfatigueor someotheralternative of causethat merelynegatesexistence jury instruction elementof sfafe'scase,no defensive needbe given. C. CHARGE WORKING ON CONDITION INSTRUMENT OF 1. NOTENTITLED SUCH CHARGE TO A

Stone v. State, 685 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.-FortWorth 1985),affd., 703 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). jury Improperto charge it shoutd disregard results test jury hadreasonable if doubtastowhether of instrument wasin good workingorder. Courtheld that hole in breathtesttube wentto weightto be accorded test result. the 2. ENTITLED CHARGE TO DPSREGULATIONS TO AS

Atkinson State , 871 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.App.-FortWorth 1994, rev'd, 923 S.W.2d 21 v. (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Shoutd havecharged issue whetherDPSregulations were complied on of regarding testing breath with. Courtof Criminal Appealsholds in condition instrument this of thatthechargeon the working page 5 and casewasproperand sefsouf the following for on standard makingthat determination it doesbearreading.lt didremandthe casefo theFort WorthCourtof Appealsbecause court that appliedthe wrongstandardin determining the failureto give the chargewas not harmless. that Uponremand,that courtfoundharm. D. NO CHARGE BLOOD URINE BREATH ON IN TESTCASE OR

Maddox State, pet. v. 705S.W.2d 770 739(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1986), dism'd, S.W.2d [1st 780(Tex.Crim-App. 1988). Notrequired include to whenevidence definition alcohol of to concentration it relates blood/urine as is that breathtestgiven.

TL7

E.

SYNERGISTIC CHARGES 1. P R OP E R

Grayv. State, 152S.W.3d125(Tex.Crim.App. 2006). Thisappeal involved DWI case wherethe Statealleged and a alcohol astheintoxicant thedefense presented evidencethat it was the anti-depressants defendantwas taking more than the the alcoholthat causedhisbehavior. Ihe Sfafeb chemisttestified drugsthe defendant took had the given. Thedefense a synergistic effectandtheHeard/Sutton attacked andargued this chargewas that the intoxicantwas an elementof the DWI chargeand that Suttonshouldbe overruled. The Courtof Criminal Appealsrejectedbothof thosearguments.lt concluded the substance that that causes intoxication notan element theoffense. Instead, is an evidentiary is matter. TheCourt it of affirmedthat Suttonwasproperlydecided chargewasproperlyusedin this and that a synergistic case. Sutton State, v. 899S.W.2d 682(Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Heard State,665S.W.2d v. 488 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). pet.ref'd). Booher State, v. 668S.W.2d 882(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1984, [1st Miller State, v. 341S.W.2d440(Tex.Crim.App. 1960). Stateentitledto whendrug useevidence comesout, even thoughnot allegedin charge. 2. NOTFOR"FATIGUE"

Atkins State, v. 990S.W.2d 763(Tex.App.-Austin no 1999, pet.). Held to be error,albeit harmless, whencourt gave synergistic chargethat spoketo defendant's "allowinghis physicalconditionto deteriorate.' Court distinguishes instructionfrom other f/iis synergistic chargesituations holdsit borderedon commenton weightof evidence. and 3. NOTFOR"THEORY INTOXICATION ALLEGED'' NOT OF

Barron State, v. 353S.W.3d 879(Tex.Crim.App. 1). 201 Trialcourt'serrorin giving"synergistic individual instruction regarding enhanced effectswhen effect" combines alcoholwith medication not harmless. trialtherewasno evidence defendant that was Af hadingested medication intoxicating any or substance otherthanalcohol.Juryhadhearddefinition ofintoxication, erroneous and by instruction evidence combination suggesting of emphasized State's specific modeof actionthroughwhichuseof "medication drug"together with useof alcohol could or produceintoxication. Rodriquez State,18 S.W.3d228(Tex.Crim.App.2000). v. Defendantin this felony DWI trial was allegedto have been intoxicatedby the introduction of "alcohol" into hisbody. Therewas testimony trial by defendant at that he had not been drinking
118

(Contact) madehimdrowsy. Thechargeallowedthe alcoholbuthad takencold/flu medication that jury to convictif they foundthe defendant "by of intoxicated reasonof the introduction alcohol,a drug,or a combination bothof thesesubsfances" thebody. The StatearguedtheHearcl_and of into Sutton casespermitted butthe Courtpointedoutthat Heardand Sutton only speaktocharging this that a subsfance the made a suqpecf/noresusceptible alcoholwhile this expanded theoryby to allowingconviction on.theory introducing druginto the body. of a F. GENERAL VERDICT FORM

Bradford State,230 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2007, pet.). no S.W.3d719 [14th pet.ref'd). Fullenwider State,176S.W.3d v. 290(Tex.App.-Houston District] 2004, [1st (Tex.App.-Fort Torres State,109S.W.3d v. no pet.). 602 Worth2003, Trial Court properly deniedrequest for specific verdict form in DWI trial. Srncethe definitionof intoxication sets forth alternativemeans of committingone offense,a specialverdict form is not neededwhenmultipletheories intoxication alleged. of are SeeAlso! pet.ref'd). Price State, S.W.3d v. 59 297(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2001, pet.ref'd). Blokv. State, 986S.W.2d 389(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 1999, [1st Chauncey State,837 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992),aff'd., 877 S.W.2d 305 v. (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Reardon State, v. 695S.W.2d no 331(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1985, pet.). [1st pet. McGintvv. (Tex.App.-Houston State,740S.W.2d475 1987, ref'd). [1stDist.] pet. Simsv. State,735 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 913 1987, ref'd). pet.ref'd). Rayv. State S.W.2d 939(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, ,749 Thoughseparate theoriesof intoxicationare alleged,a generalverdictform is sufficientif evidence supports conviction undereithertheory. G. SEPARATE VERDICT FORMS?

pdr.ref'd). Reidweg State, v. 981S.W.2d 1998, 399(Tex.App.-San Antonio pet.ref'd). Ravv. State, 749S.W.2d 1988, 939,944(Tex.App.-San Antonio Atkinson State, v. 923S.W.2d , 23 (Tex.Crim.App. 21 1996). Davis State, v. (Tex.App.-San 949S.W.2d 28,29-30 1997, pet.). no Antonio pet.ref'd). Owenv. State, (Tex.App.-Waco 905S.W.2d434,437-39 1995, Ihese opinionssaythat separate verdict formsshould have beengivenbut further hotdthatthe failureto do so was harmless there was sufficient so evidence supporta findingof guilt under to eithertheoryof intoxication.So they really don't contradict fhe cases cited in (H above.

Lt9

H.

DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION INSTRUCTION

Hernandez State 842S.W.2d294(Tex.Crim.App. v. 1992). , Defendanthasno burdento showhe hasa validdriverslicense be entitledto a jury instruction to thatthejury canrecommend driver'slicense be suspended. his not I. MOTOR VEHICLE A DEADLY AS WEAPON A DWICASE IN 1. IS PROPER

Sierra State, v. 280S.W.3d 250(Tex.Crim.App. 2009). ln thisfelonyDWI case,the Courtof CriminalAppeals reversedthe Courtof Appeals holdingthat thereis insufficient evidence the defendant's that vehiclewasusedas a deadlyweapon. Thefacts show the defendantstruck a vehiclethat pulled out of an apartmentcomplexparkinglot. The defendant arguedhe was not speeding, had the right of way, hisview wasobstructed, he he and tried to avoidthe collision. Ihe dlssentarguesthat the findingwas not appropriate becausethe defendant not causethisaccident wasmerelyinvolved an accident did and in witha "careless driver whowasinjured." TheCourtmajorityfocused thelack of evidence defendant that on attempted to brakebeforethe crasheventhoughhe saw the othervehiclein timeto do so,and the fact thejury couldhave foundevidence defendantwasspeeding. the Woodall State, 2008 WL 3539997 v. (Tex.App.-Austin 2008 pet. ref'd)(not designated for publication). ln this case witnessfesfffledthat defendantentered his lane of traffic and almosthit his truck. Witness had to slow downwhendefendant enteredhislane and furtherdescribed how defendant struck several proof that he was "actually traffic barrelswhich was sufficient endangered" the by defendant's drivingso a deadlyweaponfindingwould stand. Ochoa State, v. 119S.W.3d 825(Tex.App..-San Antonio 2003,no pet.). ln this caseofficertestifiedthat therewereothervehicleson the road whenthe defendant drifted out of hislane and came "real closeto strikingand hitting"anothervehicle. The Courtfound this wassufficientbecause therewere"otherdriverson theroad whowereactuallyendangered the by defendant's of his vehicle" the deadlyweaponfindingwasproper. use so Mann State,58 v. S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2001). 132 Testimony showedthat defendant almosthit anothervehicle"head-on" whenif crossedthe center line and that othervehicletookevasiveactionand avoidedthe collision. Thearrestingofficerfurther testified that based hisexperience on reconstructing he accidents, wasof theopinion a collision that underfhose circumstances wouldhave been capableof causingdeath or seriousbodilyinjury. Chargeon and findingof DeadlyWeapon wasproper.
1)n

Davis State, v. 964S.W.2d 352(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1998, pet.). no Testimony showed that the defendantwas weavingand drove in the oncominglane of traffic resultingin anothervehiclehavingto take evasiveaction to avoid a collision. DeadlyWeapon finding was proper. 2. MAYOR MAYNOTBE PROPER?

Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) remand 187 S.W.3d 161 on (Tex.App.-Texarkana judgment 2006)pdr granted, vacated 210S.W.3d by 644(Tex.Crim.App. 2006)on remand 219S.W.3d 471 (Tex.App.-Texarkana pet. to 2Q07 ref'd). Courtof Appeals had foundthere was insufficient evidence show that the motorvehiclein this to case was used as a deadlyweaponbecauseit found there was no evidencethat others were actuallyendangered.ln reversingthisholding,the Courtof CriminalAppeals foundthat the Court of Appealshad misconstrued actual dangerrequirementby equatinga deadly weapon's the capabilityof causingdeathor seriousbodilyinjury with itsprobabilitvof doing,thusreadinginto the statute additional an requirement evasive of actionor zoneof dangerwhensaidrequirement not did existand therefore reversedand remandedthiscasefo the Courtof Appeals.Uponremand,the Courtof Appeals once againfoundtherewas insufficient evidence supportthe deadlyweapon to findingbased on ifs findingthat there was insufficient evidencethat there was anothermotorist present theroadway"atthe sameplaceand time"as the defendant on whenhe drovein a reckless manner. The Courtof CriminalAppeals onceagainacceptedPDRand reversedand remanded again, findingthat the factual-sufficiency standardof review usedby the Court of Appealswas flawed. In lastremand Court of Appealsappliedproper standardand (big surprise) again held againstdeadlyweaponfinding. 3. IS NOTPROPER

Boesv. State,2004 1685244 (Tex.App.-Austin WL 2004). ln this casetrooperobserued defendant failedto cometo a complefe sfopat the sfops/gn. When turning, defendant over-accelerated momentarily controlof hisvehicle and lost causing to fishtail it sidewaysand almosthit the curb of the sidewalk. Therewas insufficientevidenceto supportthe deadlyweapon finding. TheCourtpointedout therewasno evidence anyonee/sewasactually that endangered the defendant's by driving. Williams State, v. 946S.W.2d 432(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, pet.). no Courtof Appeals held that a "deadlyweapon"findingwas not permissible absentevidencethat anothermotoristwas on the highwayat the time and place defendantdrove in an intoxicated condition.

L2I

4.

NOTICE MUSTBE ADEQUATE ANDTIMELY

(Tex.App.-Beaumont for Desilets State,2010 v. 2010,no pet.)(Notdesignated WL 3910588 publication). The Statefilingan amended of motionsevendaysprior to trial that notifieddefendant the Sfafeb intent to prove that he "did then and there use and exhibit a deadly weapon,namely,a motor vehicle"wasfoundto be adequate notice. pet.ref'd). Hocutt State,927 v. S.W.2d201(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1996, ln felonyDWI casewithan accident minorinjuries, and Sfafefaxednoticeof intentto seeka deadly just 3 daysbeforevoir dire began. Thenotice did not specify itsface that the weaponfinding on deadlyweaponwasthe "automobile." Courtof Appeals The heldthat the noticewasneithertimely nor adequate and reversedthe caseon punishment only. J. NO DEFINITION "NORMAL BE OF USE''SHOULD GIVEN

(Tex.App.-Texarkana Baqqett State, v. 2012WL 1693858 2012). Murphv State, S.W.3d v. 44 2001,no pet.). 656(Tex.App.-Austin It wasimproper the Courtto chargethejury on a definition "normaluse." for of holding. ButseeDavyv. State, S.W.3d no 67 382(Tex.App.-Waco,2001, pet.)for a contrary K. NO SUCHTHING "ATTEMPTED AS DWI''

pet.ref'd). Stronq State, S.W.3d v. 87 206(Tex.App.-Dallas, 2002, Evidencewas presentedthat the officersaw a vehiclestoppedin the middleof the road, facing north,with itshazardlightsblinking. Theofficersaw the suspecfalonein the driver'sseatof the vehicleand observedthe rear reverselights were illuminated whichhe testifiedmeant that the ignitionof the vehiclehad to be on. After speakingwith fhe suspectand askingher fo sfep out of the vehiclefhaf suspectput the vehiclein park and got out of the vehicle. She waslater arrested for DWl. Thetrialjudgedirected State on DWIandsubmitted lesser the chargeof attempted the out jury for whichshe was convicted. The Statetried to appealthe acquittalon the DWI DWI to the jeopardyand it chargeand the Courtof Appeals held that it was barredfrom doing so by double furtherheld thereis no suchthingas AttemptedDWI and remanded casefor acquittal. the L. DEFENSE NOCHARGE INVOLUNTARY AND ON INTOXICATION AUTOMATISM IN THISDWI/PRESCRIPTION CASE DRUG

Nelson State,149S.W.3d v. no 206(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2004, pet.). Caseinvolveda defendantwho was tried for DWI from ingestionof prescription drugs. The L22

intoxication and Defendant appealedthe court'sdenialof hisrequestfor a chargeon involuntary had automatism. Involuntary medication occursonlyif theindividual no intoxication prescription by judgmentis exercised knowledge independent ofpossrb/e intoxicating er7ecfs thedrug,since srde of had in takingthe drugas medicine, as an intoxicant.ln fhiscase,the defendant takenthedrugs not was chargewasnot available beforeand wasawareof theireffect. Anotherreason defensive the proofof a culpable mental thatalthough involuntary culpability, intoxication a defenseto criminal is DWI. Claimof automatism sfafeis not requiredin prosecutions intoxication including for offenses, took the fails becausethat defenseis not availablewhen, as here, the defendantvoluntarily intoxicant. M. NO MEDICAL EXCUSE INSTRUCTION

Burkett State, v. 179S.W.3d18 (Tex.App. Antonio 2005, reh.overruled). San Thedefense arguedand presented in evidence this casethat whatthe officerthoughtwassignsof intoxication wasrequested that issue on wereactuallyAID'srelatedcomplications. instruction An wasnot a instruction and denied. TheCourtof Appeals medicalexcuse heldthat the defendant's statutorily-enumerated that they couldarguewouldnegate defense.lt merelyservedas evidence the impairment elementof the Sfafeb case. Therefore, trial courtproperlydenied Burkeft's the questedin struction. re N. EVIDENCE NOJURYINSTRUCTION FAILURE PRESERVE TO ON

Whitev. State,125 S.W.3d41 (Tex.App.Houston Dist.]2003)pet. ref'd 149 S.W.3d159 [14th (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Thedefensein thisintoxication instructionbasedon the manslaughter casesoughta "spoilation" is failureto secure bicyclethat wasinvolved the crash. Thedutyto preserveevidence Sfafeb in a limitedtoevidencefhafpossessesan exculpatoryvaluethatwasapparentbeforetheevidencewas destroyed. ln this case,the only evidencebeforethe trial courtregardingthe materialityof the accident-reconstruction bicyclewas an affidavitfrom appellanfbcounselstatingthat appellant's appellanthasshownonly expert"hasindicated needto inspect complainant's At a the bicycle." best, that preservation the bicyclemioht have been favorable,which is insufficientto satisfythe of requirement materiality.Theinstruction of wasproperlydeniedin this case. O. DEFINITION "OPERATING'' CHARGE IN OF 1. NOTERROR DENY TO REQUEST

for Yokomv. State, 2004WL 742888(Tex.App.-FortWorth 2004,pdr ref'd)(Not designated publication). the ln response thedenialof the defense in to requestto define"operating" thejury instruction, court heldthat as a generalrule,termsnot statutorily definedneednot be definedin thejury charge,but has instead to be giventheir common,ordinary,or usualmeaning. Theterm "operating" not are L23

acquireda peculiarmeaningin the law. Courtshave consistently applieda plain meaningto the jurors to freelyconstruethe term to have any meaningwithin itsnormalusage. word,allowing 2. ERROR GIVEJURYDEFINITION "OPERATING'' TO OF

Kirsch State,2012WL 1583388 v. (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2012). Ihrs caseinvolvesa holdingthat it wasimproperfor the trial courtto definethe term "operate" the in jury charge. The Courtof CriminalAppeals (Tex.Crim.App. ruled (Krsch v. State.357 DW3d645 2012)that the TrialCourt'sdefiningof the term "operate" constituted commenton the weightof a the evidence. Thecaseu/asremanded harm analysis in thisopinionthe Courtof Appeals for and foundthe harm to be egregious and that it warranted reversaland a new trial. P. NO JURYINSTRUCTION BTRCONSIDERED EVIDENCE ON AS

Helmv. State, 295 S.W.3d 780(Tex.App.-Fort no Worth2009, pet.). Bartlett State, v. (Tex.Crim.App. 270S.W.3d 147 2008). Varqas State, v. 271 S.W.3d 338(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008,no pet.). Hessv. State,224 pdr. (rehearing S.W.3d 511(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2007) overruled, refused). Jury Charge instruction statingthatjury couldconsider defendant's refusalto submitto a breath the fesf as evidence constituted impropercommenton the weightof the evidence. an O. ERROR CHARGE CONCURRENT TO ON IN CAUSATION DWICASE

Ottov. State, (Tex.Crim.App.2008, denied). 2008WL 313942 reh. Af Sfafeb request, jury instructions the included claimed 6.04of the lexas PenalCode. Defendant that was error and the Court agreedfor the followingreasons. Unlike Suttonand Gray, thejury charge did not include a susceptibility theory. ln Grav and Sutton,the jury chargepermitted conviction theingestion drugsmadethe defendant if of by more susceptible beingintoxicated the to -alcohol. Here,thejury chargeand instructions jury to find Otto chargedintoxicant authorized the guiltyif itfoundherintoxicated reason (1)theintroduction alcohol her body,thecharged by of of into intoxicant,or (2) by the introductionof unknowndrugs concurrentlywith alcohol-a combination theory. A jury's findingthat Otto was intoxicated reasonof unknowndrugsconcurrently with by -that thejury foundOttointoxicated alcohol alcoholdoesnot mean-like in Sutton by and Grav alone. Gray. 152 S.W.3dat 133(stating"[i]nboth fhis caseand in Suffon.the chargepermitted conviction onlyif the drugsmadethe defendant more suscepfib/e the alcohol'). to R. NOTENTITLED A CCP38.23INSTRUCTION TO

Dovle State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.], 2008WL 597450 2008pdrref'd). [1 At the chargeconference, defendant regarding stop objected the lack of a 38.23instruction to the
L24

a of hiscar, specifically whetherhe was weavingor failedto maintain singlelane. Boththe officer that explained andthe defendanttestified he woveintothelaneof oncoming traffic.Defendant that him, i.e., he did so to avoida parkedcar, but did not disputethe reasonwhy the officer stopped because wasweaving.Because he in regarding stop,he was the therewasno factualissue dispute not entitledto the requested instruction. (Tex.App.-Dallas for Sledqe State,1994 247961 v. designated WL June9, 1994,no pet.)(Not publication). Thedefendant out."The testified thathe changedlanesbut onlybecausethe lane ended,"played he Courtof Appeals instruction because heldthatthe defendantwas entitled anArticle 38.23 not to didnot disputethe officer'stestimony soughtto explainthereason about hisweaving but, instead, he drovethat way. Id. TheCourtof Appealsconcluded the evidence not raisea factissue that did aboutwhetherthe officerstoppedthe defendant. Bellv.State, (Tex.App.-Fort 2005WL 503647 op., Worth2005, pet.ref'd)(mem. notdesignated for publication). TheCourtof Appeals requestfor an Article 38.23 upheldthe trial court'sdenialof the defendant's instruction, notingthat shedid not contestthe existence natureof the evidenceunderlying the or officer'sdecisionto stopher. Shemerely challenged he whetherthe circumsfances observed authorized stop. Because the facts was disputed,the Courtof only the effect of the underlying jury instruction. Appealsheld that the defendant wasnot entitledto an Article 38.23 pet.ref'd). Beaslev State, v. 810S.W.2d 838,(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1991, Where the arrestingofficersand the defendanttestifiedthat she was sweruingand weaving betweenlaneson the highway,and the only issuewas that the defendant offeredan explanation that shesweruedbecause wastryingto stopher children fromfighting, courtheldshe uras the she not entitledto the Article 38.23instructionsherequested. S. PER SE DEFINITIONOPTION SHOULD BE SUBMITTED-LIMITING INSTRUCTION IMPROPER

Kirsch State, v. 306S.W.3d 738(Tex.Crim.App. 2010). It was proper for the Trial Courtto instructthejury that it could find the defendantguilty under the per se impairmentdefinitionof intoxication,despitethe absenceof retrogradeextrapolation evidence. Thedefendant'sbloodfesfshowedthathehadaBACof0.l0atthehospital,S0minutes afer he was involvedin the car wreck. The resultsare evidence from whicha jury couldfind the defendantguilty underthe per se impairmentdefinition. TrialCourt'sinstructionin prosecutionfor (DWI),thatjury couldconsider driving whileintoxicated content(BAC)test defendant's bloodalcohol result"for the limitedpurposeof showingthat the individualfesfed had ingestedalcoholonly at somepointbeforethe timeof the test,"wasmisleading an improper and comment the weightof on probative showthatdefendant intoxicated the time theevidence; BACfesfresu/fwas also was at to he wasdriving, eventhoughit wasnot sufficient itselfto proveintoxication the timeof driving. at by
L25

Williams State, v. 307S.W.3d 862(Tex.App.-Fort no Worth2010, pet.). Even though BAC was .07 ninety minutes after the defendant'sarrest and there was no ertrapolation evidence, trial courtproperlysubmittedthe per se theoryof intoxication the the as evidence supported inference defendant an the was intoxicated underboth theories. T. PROPER SUBMIT TO INSTRUCTION INTOXICATION THAT CAUSED DRUGS BY

v. Quellette State, 353S.W.3d 868(Tex.Crim.App.2011). Eventhoughtherewasno testimony expertor otherwise as fo whether particular the drugsfound in Quellette'svehicle couldhaveanintoxicating effector whetherQuellette's actions, demeanor, and conduct were consrsfenf with being under the influenceof drugs or under the influenceof a combination drugs and alcohol,it was proper for judge to includethe languageconcerning of intoxicationby drugs in thejury instruction. U. DEFINITION JURY INSTRUCTION IN TO BE LIMITED EVIDENCE SHOULD PRESENTED TRIAL AT

Erickson State,13 S.W.3d v. 850(Tex.App.-Austin 2000,pet.ref'd). In this case,the Courtinstructed jury that a person intoxicated the withinthe meaningof the law is "whensuch persondoesnot have the normaluse of his physicator mentalfacutties reasonof by theintroduction alcohol, controlled of a substance, drug,or a combination two or moreof these a of subsfances the body,tracking charging into the instrument the statutory and definition."Therewas no evidence trial that defendant at consumed intoxicant any exceptalcohol. For that reason, the TrialCourtshouldhavelimitedthe definition the instructions justrefer to alcohol. Thiserror in to wasfoundto be harmless becausefhe prosecutor neversuggesfed that thejury couldconvicton fhe basrsof a findingthat appellantwasintoxicated the useof a controlledsubstance drug, by or eitheraloneor in combination withanothersubstance. Ferquson State, S.W.3d v. 2 718(Tex.App.-Austin 1999, pet.). no ln this case,the term "intoxicated" definedin the charging was instrument and thejury chargeas "nothavingthe normal useof oneb physicalor mentalfaculties reasonof the introduction by of alcohol,a controlledsubstance, drug,a substance itsvaporsthat containa volatilechemical, a or an abuseable glue,or an aerosolpaint,or a combination two or more of fhose substances into of thebody." Thestatutedoesnot includewithinitsdefinition "intoxication" words"a substance the of or itsvaporsthatcontaina volatile glue,or an aerosol paint."Therewasno chemical, abuseable an presented trialthat the defendant's evidence at was alleged intoxication causedby theintroduction into her body "a subsfance its vaporsthat containa volatilechemical, abuseable glue,or an or an paint." For thesereasonsand the factthattheprosecutor aerosol referredto the erroneous charge in argument, errorwas foundto be harmfuland fhe casewas reyersed. the

126

V.

WHEN CHARGE SPECIFICALLY USES SUBJECTIVEDEFINITIONOF INTOXICATION NOT PER SE DEFINITION, PER SE DEFINITION AND THE SHOULD NOTBE IN JURYINSTRUCTION

pdr Crenshaw State 2011Wt 3211258 v. (Tex.App.-Fort Worth2011, granted). , A jury charge,whichinstructedthejury on both the subjectivedefinitionand the per se definitionof intoxication despifethe information havingallegedonly the subjective definition,was held to be error. The Courtof Appeals held that wherethe State haselectedto narrowifs caseby relying solelyon the subjectivedefinition the information at trial soughtand obtained(overtimely in but per se definitions the charge,it is error. In its objection) benefitof both the subjective the in and pointsout thatbecausethe information not allegethe "per se"theory discussion the harm,it of did of intoxication, therewasno noticeto appellant any intentto offerexpertevidence retrograde of of extrapolation and no opportunityfor appellantto securean expert to rebut the information. XXII. JURYARGUMENT A. PERMISSIBLE 1. DEFENDANT FAILED BLOWBECAUSE KNEWHEWOULDFAIL HE TO

Nunezv. State,2OOT 12gg241(Tex.App.-Fort WL for Worth 2007, pet.)(not designated no publication). v. Gaddis State, 753S.W.2d 396(Tex.Crim.App. 1988). It is properto arguethat defendant failedto blowinto instrument because"heknewhe wouldfail." 2. DEFENDANT'S FAILURE DO FST'SON VIDEO TO

Emiqh State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist] v. 916 71 no 1996, pet.). [1st Prosecutors referringto defendant's failurefo do FSIs on the stationhousevideo,tape not a was privilegeagainstself-incrimination. commenton violation defendant's of 3. (i.e. DEFENDANT'S BT) REFUSAL DOANYTHING FST'S, TO

Castillo State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 939S.W.2d754 1997pet.ref'd). [14th jurorsshouldnotrewarddefendant doingnothing" thattheyshould send Argumentsthat "for not and a messagethat it's "okay to refuseto do everything," proper plea for law both constituteda jurorsnot to punishdefendant enforcement a properresponse defense and to argument that asked for refusingto do unreliablefesfs.

1-27

4.

DEFENDANT'S TRYING LOOKGOODON TAPE TO

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2000,pet ref'd). v. Gomez State, S.W.3d746 35 [1't lookedon Statearguedin response defenseargument to that they shouldrely on how defendant the videotape was as follows,"They walkedhim into the room and commonsense tellsyou that up. they will straighten whenan individual knowstheyare beingtapedand knows it'simportant, Theyare goingto straighten up." Defense argumentthis was outsidethe recordwasrejectedby and of the Courtwhichfoundthatthe argument represented statement commonknowledge was a proper. therefore 5. ON THEORY OF JURY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS INTOXICATION

pet.ref'd). Price State, S.W.3d v. 59 297(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2001, Thedefinition intoxicafion one of sefsforthalternate meansof committing offense. lt doesnot set jury is not thereforerequired to reach a unanimous forth separateand distinct offenses. A agreem on alternative ent factu theorie of intoxication. al s 6. ABOUT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT REGARDING WAS PROPER FAILURE CALLITSEXPERT TO

Popev. State, 207S.W.3d 352(Tex.Crim.App. 15,2006). Nov. Testimony elicitedfrom State'sDNA expertsindicatingthat defendant'sDNAexpert had been providedwith fheSfafeb DNAtestingandhadfailedtorequestadditionaltestingdidnotviolatework productdoctrine;suchfact was withinthe personalknowledge the Sfafeb experts, and a party of couldbe allowedto commenton the fact that the opponent failedto call an availablewitnessand to thenarguethat the opponent had anythingfavorable say. wouldhave calledwlfnessif witness product doctrine. Ihis does not violatethe attorneywork B. IMPERMISSIBLE

(Tex.App.-El Blessinq State,927 v. no 5.W.2d266 Paso1996, pet.). It was reversibleerror for prosecutorto informjury of the existence two for one good time credit of the defendant wouldreceiveif sentencewasforjail timeas opposed prisonand to urgethemto to g consid ifs exisfencein assessrn punishment. er

L2B

XXIII. PROBATION ELIGIBLE v. 1975). Baker State, 519S.W.2d437(Tex.Crim.App. pet.ref'd). 1984, Tennerv State, v. Christi 680S.W.2d 629(Tex.App.-Corpus (fromsomesource)that Burdenof proofis on defendant showby swornaffidavitplustestimony to he is eligiblefor probation. XXIV. PRIORS/ENHANCEMENTS A. IN PROVING NAMED JUDGMENT DEFENDANT PERSON IS THAN"SAMENAME'' 1. I.D.MUSTBE BASED MORE ON

Whitev. State, 1982, pet.). no 634 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin 81 2. ANDSENTENCE BOOK.IN CARDMUST TIEDTO JUDGMENT BE

1999,pet. Rehearing overruled Zimmer State,989 S.W.2d48 (Tex.App.-San v. Antonio1998, ref'd). Where Stateprovedidentityof defendantby usingbook-incard whichit offeredin conjunctionwith but and Sentence notthe card,and a Judgment and Sentence thejudgeadmitted Judgment the and as therewasno evidence the tyingthe card to the Judgment and Sentence, proof wasinsufficient predicate for admission the slip, of laid tothatprior. (lt appearsthere maynothavebeena sufficient i.e. business record, and and implies tiebetween slipandtheJudgment Sentence cause no the [i.e. numberon sliptied to J & S/ because therewas no mentionof samein the opinion.) 3. PRINTS PHOTOS OR PROOF ID POSSIBLE OF WITHOUT

for (Tex.App.-Dallas Richardson State,2004WL 292662 v. 2004,no pet.)(Not designated publication). Therewereno prints the certified docketsheefg charginginstruments, thejudgmentand or on trial probation provethedefendant thesameperson photographs was order,nor werethereany usedto gender,race,dateof birth,and drivers'license namedin the twopriors. Thedefendant's address, gainedfromdefendant the at numberwereon fhosedocuments, theymatchedtheinformation and proof that the defendant was the same person time of the arrest. This wasfoundto be sufficient namedin the prior.

L29

4.

COMPUTER PRINTOUT PROOF PRIOR AS OF CONVICTION

Ex Parte pp. Warren, S.W.3d 353 490(Tex.Crim.A 2011). Flowers State, v. 220S.W.3d 919(Tex.Crim.App.2007). printoutofferedto proveprior conviction Heldthat a computer information contained sufficient and indiciaof reliability constitute functional to the tied equivalent a judgmentand sentence to this of particular defendant.ln this case,the printoutsfafesthe defendant's name,the offensecharged, and date of commission; he was foundguiltyof and sentenced the offense;and givesthe that for specffibsof the sentenceand the amount of time served. Further, the printout is properly authenticated the DallasCountyClerkin accordance by with evidentiary rule 902(4). The other document offeredwas a certified copyof defendant's record. DL B. PRIORS FORWHICHDEFERRED ADJUDICATION GIVEN

Brown State 716S.W.2d v. 939(Tex.Crim.App. 1986).[reversed othergrounds]. on , Orderof DFAJisadmrssible punishment phase trialregardless whether probationhasbeen in of of completed.(Applies in general, not specific to DWI prosecution). C. USEOF DPSRECORDS PROVE TO PRIORS 1. FORPURPOSE TYING OF DEFENDANT J & S TO

Gibson State, v. 952S.W.2d 569(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, pet.). no Williams State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Waco v. 946 886 1997 pet.h.). no Spauldinq State, v. 896S.W.2d 587(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1995, pet.). no [1st Abbrinq State, v. 882S.W.2d 914(Tex.App.-Fort no Worth1994, pet.). Lopez State, v. 805S.W.2d 882(Tex.App.-Corpus 1991, pet.). no Christi Use of DPS recordsto tie defendantto priors is proper. 2. DPSRECORDS ALONE WITHOUT & S . NOTENOUGH J

Gentile State, v. 848S.W.2d 359(Tex.App.-Austin 1993, pet.). no judgmentand sentence not sufficientto UseofDPSrecordsalonewithout proveenhanced priors. is 3. DPSRECORDS NOTEXCLUDABLE UNDERCOLE

Tannerv. State,875 S.W.2d8 (Tex.App.-Houston[1st Dist] 1994,pet. ref'd). Driving records prepared by DPS do not fall under the exclusion of 803(8)b) described in Cole v. Sfafe.

1_3 0

D.

ADMISSIBLE FA)(ED COPYOF JUDGMENT SENTENCE &

64 946 affirmed S.W.2d Enqlund State, v. 907 S.W.2d937(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1995) [1st (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Courtheld thatrequiremenfs Rules 1001(3), 1001(4), & 901 (a) & (b)(7)of the TexasRulesof of wereofferedin lieu of originals. Evidenceweremet whenfaxedjudgmentand sentence Criminal E. PRIORS ENHANCEMENT FELONY DWIWITHNON.DWI OF

Jones State, v. 796S.W.2d 183(Tex.Crim.App. 1990). Phifer State,787 v. 1990). S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 395 v. no Seaton State,718S.W.2d 1986, pet.). 870(Tex.App.-Austin (Tex.Crim.App. Rawlinqs State,602 v. 1980). S.W.2d268 priorconvictions. (Pointbeingthatif felonyconvictions FelonyDWIcanbe enhanced withnon-DWI other than thoseof felonyDWI are used,a personconvicted felonyDWI can be a "habitual" of criminal.) F. ERROR ENHANCEMENT NOTFATAL IN PARAGRAPH 1. WRONG DATE ALLEGED

Valenti State, S.W.3d v. 49 no 594(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2001, pet.). Zimmerlee State,777 v. 1989, pet.). 5.W.2d791(Tex.App.-Beaumont no Variance showing between dafesin DWI enhancemenfs allegedand as provednot fatal absent as that defendant was surprised, mislead,or prejudiced. 2. WRONG CASENUMBER ALLEGED

Human State v. .2d 1988). ,749 S.W 832(Tex.Crim.App. the ln the absence a showing the defendant surprised prejudiced discrepancy, fact of or by that was that causenumberin DWI conviction differedfrom thatprovenat trial allegedin felonyindictment wasnot fatal. In fhrscase,it wasallegedthatpriorhad cause#F80-1197-MN whenproofshowed it wascause#F80-11997N. Colev. Stpte, 1 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 61 79 1981). paragraphthat allegedprior was in cause#87954whenit was No fatalvariancein enhancement proventhat it was in fact undercause#87594. later

131

3.

WRONG STATE ALLEGED

Plessinqer State, v. 536S.W.2d 380(Tex.Crim.App. 1976). proof Wherethe enhancement allegedtheprior wasout of Texaswhenit wasreallyout of Arizona, is sufficient absence a showingthat the defendant in of was misled,prejudiced, surprised. or 4. WRONG CHARGING INSTRUMENT ALLEGED

Hallv.State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 619 156 1980). Whereenhancement allegedthat prior arose out of "indictment" when it in fact aroseout of an "information" held not to be a fatal variance. was G. APPEAL REVOKED OF DWIDOESN'T BARITSUSEFORENHANCEMENT

Statev. Camacho827S.W 443(Tex.App.-San .2d Antonio 1992, pet.). no , DWIrevocation beingappealeddoesn't its use fo enhanceDWI to felony. bar H. FELONY DWI 1. ORDEROFENHANCEMENTS

v. pet.ref'd). Streff State, 890S.W.2d 815(Tex.App.-Eastland 1994, Peckv. State, pet.ref'd). 753S.W.2d 811(Tex.App.-Austin 1988, PriorDWI'sconvictions usedto enhancecasefo felonyneednot be sequential. 2. UNDERLYING PRIORS DWI IN AREADMISSIBLE GUILT/INNOCENCE STAGE

Barfield State, S.W.3d446(Tex.Crim.App. v. 63 2001). Maibauer State, v. pet.ref'd). 968S.W.2d502(Tex.App.-Waco 1998, Willv. State, 794S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] pet.ref'd). 948 1990, [1st Addinqton State, v. pet. 730S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Texarkana, ref'd). 788,789-90 Freeman State, v. pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Dallas 733S.W.2d 662,663-64 1987, Statev. Wheeler, S.W.2d415(Tex.App.-Amarillo 790 1990, pet.). no priorDWI convictionswere jurisdictionalelements the offenseof felonyDWl. Thus, Defendant's of fhoseconvictions wereproperlypart of sfafebproof at guiltstageof trial.

L32

3.

DEFENDANT'S AGREEMENT TO STIPULATETO PRIORS DOES PRECLUDE THEIR BEING ADMITTED

Hernandez State, S.W.3d v. 109 491(Tex.Crim.App. 2003). v. Smith State,12 S.W.3d149(Tex.App.-El Paso2000,pet.ref'd). Tamez State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2000). v. 11 198 lf a defendant stipulates twopriorconvictions, State to the mayreadthe indictment thebeginning at of the trialmentioning twoprior convictions may not give any evidence themduringtrial. the but of Also, if stipulatedthat there are two prior DWls, evidenceof more than two DWls may not be mentionedduring trial. Robles State, S.W.3d211(Tex.Crim.App.2002). v. 85 Wherethe defendant agreesto stipulate priors,the StatecanTofferfhose priorsinto evidence. to The Court pointsout that details contained the priorscan be prejudicialtothe defendant. in 4. STIPULATION SHOULD ADMITTED BE INTOEVIDENCE

Hollen State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 117 798 2003). Hernandez State,109S.W.3d v. 491(Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Statev. McGuffev, S.W.3d654 (Tex.App.-Tyler2002,no pet.). 69 v. Orona State, S.W.3d242 (Tex.App.-El 52 Paso2001, pet.). no Theproperprocedure, underTamez, for the stipulation be offeredintoevidence published is to and to thejury. 5. TWOPRIORS THATARISEOUTOF A SINGLE CRIMINAL ACTMAYBE USED ENHANCE A FELONY TO TO

Gibson State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 995 693 1999). Twopreviousconvictions manslaughter were basedon two deathsarisingout of a single for that act of drivingwhileintoxicated couldbe usedto enhancea new chargeof drivingwhiteintoxicated up to a felony chargeof driving whileintoxicated. 6. JUDGE HASNOAUTHORITY FIND TO PRIOR CONVICTION TRUE WHEN ISSUE NOTSUBMITTED JURY TO

Martin State, S.W.3d v. 84 pet 267(Tex.App.-Beaumont 2002, ref'd). In this casethe defendant was triedfor lntoxication Manslaughter, thejury wasgivena /esser and included instruction DWl. Thejury foundthe defendant for guiltyof the /essercharge,and the triat court found the defendant had two prior DWls and found him guilty of FetonyDWt. The Court

r_33

reversedthe conviction, holdingthat thereis no supportfor the argumentthat the trial court was permitted assumetherole of fact-finder the issueof the twopriorconvictions.TheCourtheld fo on thatthepriorconvictions elements mustbe included thejury chargeand foundto be true are in and beforea jury may find a defendantguilty of the offenseof FelonyDWl. 7. STIPULATING PRIORS TO WAIVES YEAROBJECTION 10

v. Gordon State, 161S.W.3d 188(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet.). no Smith State, v. 158S.W.3d 463(Tex.Crim.App.2005). in Thiswas a case wherethe defendant agreedto stipulateto two prior convictions a felonyDWI trial. Helaterchallenged conviction appealon thebasisthatoneof the priorswastooremote the on underthe currentrule for calculating in suchpriors as has been articulated fhe Geffscase. The Courtof CriminalAppealsupheldthe conviction and the useof the remoteprior statingthat the defendantwaivedappellatechallengeto remoteness the "prior conviction used as predicate of conviction felonysentencing confessing for by by suchprior conviction stipulation." 8. THESTIPULATION JURYINSTRUCTION MUST ADDRESS

Martin State, v. 200S.W.3d 635,(Tex.Crim. 2006). App. Ihrs is a felony DWI casethat focusedon allegederror in thejury instructionsregardingfailure to addressthe defendant's stipulation his priors. Ihls is a great opinionfor those who have any to doubtsaboutthe rulesregarding acceptance such stipulations and how the priorsmay be the of addressedduringthe trial. In part, the Courtreaffirmedthat: whena defendantoffers to stipulate priorsin a felonyDWI case,the Statemay (butis not required)to read the entire tojurisdictional indictment,includingthe two jurisdictionalallegations(but only those two) in arraigningthe defendantin the presenceof the jury; both the Stateand the defensemay voir dire the jury concerning range punishment botha felony misdemeanor the DWI; thejuryneednotbe of for and informed the particulars the priorconvictions reading indictment, dire,opening voir or of of in the DWls,being closing arguments in thejurycharge to or itself;a defendant's stipulation thetwoprior in thenature a judicial from element of has the admission, thelegal effect removing jurisdictional of during contention; defendant notofferevidence argument opposition hisstipulation; a in to may or may into thetrial, jurymaybe informed thestipulation anywritten the stipulation be offered of and evidence before jury,butthe evidence sufficient support defendant's conviction evenif the a is to are thestipulation notgiven readto thejury; in a bench is stages or trial, guiltandpunishment the portion the not bifurcated, the Stateis not required offerthe stipulation of so during initial the to hearing, evenif the proceeding improperly is bifurcated. The newrequirements addressed the Court that: by are 1) The jury chargemustinclude element two priorDWI of somereference the jurisdictional to convictions a felonyDWItrial; in 2) Thejurycharge mustinclude stipulation its legaleffect and somereference the defendant's to of establishing jurisdictional the element. and 3) Anyerrorin failing include thejurycharge element to in to somereference thejurisdictional the stipulation analyzed is underAlmanza. In thiscase.the charoe failed do 1 thru3, butCourt founderrorto be harmless. to
1-34

9.

NOT DEFENDANTWHO TO ON THEY STIPULATES PRIORS CONDITION BE MENTIONED THEYWERE NOT WAIVES ABILITYTO COMPLAIN PROVED

Brvant State,187S.W.3d v. 397(Tex.Crim.App.2005). ln this case,the defendant stipulated the condition on that the Statenot mentionor offerevidence of the priors.He thencomplained appealthatthepriors,elements the case,werenotproven. on in TheCourtheld that by stipulating two prior convictions DWI,the defendant for waivedany right to prosecution felonyDWI; he couldnot to contest absence proof on stipulated the of for elementin arguethat the Statefailedto proveifs caseon an elementto whichhe had stipulated. 10. PROPER USEFEDERAL TO FOR DWICONVICTIONS ENHANCEMENT

Bellv. State,201 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App., 708 2006). prior convictions federalcourt,underfederalAssimilative Defendant'stwo Act in Crimes (ACA),for (DWI)wereproperlyusedto enhance drivingwhileintoxicated defendant's stateconviction DWI of to third degreefelony;federalconvictions for under Texas underACA were convictions offenses law. 11. DATES PRIOR DWI OF DWI'SARE NOTELEMENTS FELONY OF

Tietzv. State, 256S.W.3d 377(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008,pet.ref'd). The defendant triedto attackthe useof theundertying DWI'sfor enhancement arguingthat the by enhancement that was in effect at the time the priors were committed(ten year rule), as law opposed the enhancement in effectat the time of the primaryoffense(no ten year rule), to law shouldbe applied. Thisargument wasrejectedandthe court reiterates the exactdatesof prior that convictions usedfor enhancement not elements the primaryDWI offense. are of Seealso Vanderhorst State, S.W.3d v. 52 237(Tex.App.-Eastland no 2001, pet.). In re Stateex rel.Hilbiq, S.W.2d189(Tex.App.-San 985 1998, pet.). no Antonio LIMITS USEOF DWIPRIORS ON FORENHANCEMENT 1. PRIORFELONY DWI MAY BE USEDTO ENHANCE FELONY UNDER PENAL CODESECTION 12.42

Maibauer State, pet.ref'd). v. 968S.W.2d 502(Tex.App.-Waco 1998, The Statecan usea priorfelonyDWI conviction 12.42for enhancement underPenalCode Section purposes, providedthat the prior conviction not also usedto elevatethe allegedoffenseto a is felony.

1_3 5

2.

SAMEPRIOR TWICE CANNOT USED BE

Rodriouez State, S.W.3d v. 31 2000,pet.ref'd). 359(Tex.App.-San Antonio (Tex.App.-Waco pet.granted part)992 S.W.2d491 Phillips State, v. 964 S.W.2d735 in 1998, (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Waco 4 122 1999). pet.ref'd). Rivera State, v. 957S.W.2d 636(Tex.App.-Corpus 1997, Christi prior DWI convictions The same DWI chargeand may not be usedboth to enhance underlying the to provehabitualfelonyoffendersfafus. 3. WHATIS NOT"USING PRIOR A TWICE''

Perez State, v. 124S.W.3d 214(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2002, pet.). no Orona State, S.W.3d v. 52 242(Tex.App.-El no Paso2001, pet.). (Tex.App.-Houston pet.ref'd). Carrollv. State, S.W.3d797 51 2001, [1"tDist.] A misdemeanor DWI conviction was used to elevatethe DWIjurisdictionally a Felonyand the to FelonyDWI was enhancedwith other FelonyDWIs to make the defendant habitualoffender. an Oneof theFelonyDWlsrelieduponthesamemisdemeanor conviction described above.Defendant arguedthatconstituted usingthe samepriortwice. Thisargument wasrejected the Courtwhich by held that fhe Sfafe did not use the misdemeanoroffense twice becauseit did not use it for punishment purposes ratheronlyjurisdictional purposes. basedthisholding enhancement /f on but proofof themisdemeanor's thefactthatno independent is of existence requiredunder12.42(d) the Iexas PenalCode. J. OPEN CONTAINER 1. SUFFICIENT PROOF OF

Walters State,757 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 41 1988, pet.). no [14th Half full can of beer foundlodgedbetweenwindshield in and dashimmediately front of steering wheel,defendant alonein car, no evidence that can smelledor tastedof alcohol= sufficient. Troffv. State; pet.ref'd). 882S.W.2d 905(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1994, [1st Notrequiredto prove defendant held beer whiledriving. 2. EFFECT OF IMPROPER READING OF OPEN CONTAINER ENHANCEMENTGUILT/INNOCENCE IN PHASE

pdr Doneburo State, S.W.3d v. 44 651(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2001, ref'd.). The Stateerroneously read the open containerenhancement the jury when it arraignedthe to defendantat the beginningof trial. That this was a mistakeis concededby all. The Defense
136

paragraphbe includedas an elementthat the Statehad to requestedthat the "opencontainer" jury instructions.Thisrequestwas deniedby the trial courtand the prove in the guilt innocence mattersthatarenot alleges evidentiary Courtaffirmed conviction the explaining whenthe State that surplusage. necessary be provedunderArticle21.03of the CCP,the allegations considered to are K. TO AS PROPER ALLEGEDATEPROBATION GRANTED OPPOSED DATE TO PROBATION REVOKED

for (Tex.App.-Fort no Oqazv. State,2005WL 2898139 Worth 2OQt5, pet.)(Not designated publication). in Defendant arguedthat the indictments shouldhaveallegedthe date on which hisprobation the judgmentsrevokingprobation, the prior caseswas revokedand shouldhave relied on those not judgmentsof conviction.Eventhoughhisprobation convictions older wasrevoked,the underlying purposes, theindictment werefinalfor enhancement referred theproperdatesandjudgments. to so L. = DEFECT WORDING JUDGMENT/PROBATION IN ORDER BADPRIOR OF
1.

YES

Mosqueda State, S.W.2d714 (Tex.App.-Fort v. no 936 Worth1996, pet.). This was a felonyDWI casewherethere was a defect in the paperworksupporting one of the underlying misdemeanor DWI convictions. The order of probationcontainedthe language"it is therefore considered, ordered,and adjudged, that the verdictand findinqof quiltvhereinshallnot be final.thatnojudqmentbe rendered be, thereon. and thatthe defendant and is herebyplacedon probation. lf you see fhe underlinedwordingon the probationorder of your DWI prior, it violates was 42.01of the lexas Codeof Criminal Procedure that it doesnot showthat the defendant in "adjudged be guilty"asis required. Theresultin thiscaseu/asthat the defendant wasordered to acquitted. BY NOTE: IF YOUSPOT THISPROBLEM SAVETHE PRIOR EARLYYOU CANPROBABLY SEEK/NGA NUNCPRO TUNC ORDERFROM THEJUDGE OF THE COURTOUT OF WHICH THE PRIORWAS/SSUED, 2.
NO

Gonzales State, v. 309S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 48 2010). Williamson State,46 v. 463 2001, pet.). no S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Dallas Rizov. State, 963S.W.2d 137(Tex.App.-Eastland 1998, pet.) no 3. NOTA PROBLEM PRIORS FORUNDERLYING

Statev. Vasquez, S.W.3d no 140 758(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2004, pet.). [14th

1-31

Statev. Duke, S.W.3d 59 789(Tex.App.-Fort pet.ref'd). Worth2001, Ihis wasa Sfafe'sappealof an order setting asrdean indictmentfor FelonyDWl. The State relied upontwo FelonyDWI priorsto raisethe new chargeto a felony. The defense attackedthe felony pointing thatpriorsthathadbeenrelieduponto raisethosecasesfo a felonywere enhancement out faulty. Thespecific problemwiththe underlyingpriors, both out of Dallas, was that thejudgments contained languagestatingthe priors "shallnot be final." So ln a "domino" theory,the defendant argues that if the underlyingpriors were infirm, then the resultingfelony convictions usedin the actualenhancement infirmas well. The Courtof Appeals,even grantingthat the underlying are priorswerenot final, distingurshes casefromMosqueda holdingthat evenif the undertying fhis by Dallas priorsare void, there is no reasonto saythat the felonyDWI's couldnot be reformedto reflect misdemeanorconvictions for DWI and the status of the underlyingpriors being misdemeanors feloniesis immaterial. The trial Court'sorder sefting or asr?ethe indictment was reversed. 4. U N S IGN E D JUDGMENTCAN BE USEDTO PROVE ENHANCEM EN T Gallardo State, 2010 WL 99011 (Tex.App.-Amarillo v. 2010,no pet.) (Not designated for publication). Thevalidityof a judgmentof conviction the abilityfo useit to enhance DWI to a felonyis not and a affectedby the failureof the trialjudge to sign thejudgment. Courtcited, Mulderv. State,707 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 908 1986). M. ERRONEOUS DISMISSAL PROBATION THE COURT OF BY WON'TAFFECT FINALITY THECONVICTION OF

Anderson State,110S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 98 2003,reh.overruled). Jordv State, v. 969S.W.2d 528(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1998, pet.). no Mahaffey State, v. 937S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston 51 1996, pet.). no [1"tDist], Theproblem herewas notwith the faceof the judgment but rather witha subsequent orderby the sentencing courtwhichrssuedanorderthatdischarged defendantfrom probation, asidefhe the sef verdict, drsmrssed complaint, the and released fromall penalties disabilities him resulting and from commissionof the offense. The defenseargued suchan order shouldpreventthe Statefrom offeringsaidprior into evidence a finalconviction.The Courtof Appealsrejects as that argument pointingout that saidorderwaspurportedly madeundera section the codethat wasat the time of of the orderrepealed. (The section referredto is nowArticle42.12Secfion20 of the CCPwhich then,as now, doesnot applyto DWI cases.) Since orderwasrssued the without authority do so, to its orderis voidand hasno effecton the finalityof the defendant's conviction. N. MANDATORYJAIL TIME AS CONDITIONOF PROBATION-REPEAT OFFENDERS

Statev. Lucero, S.W.2d 979 400(Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet.). no Trialcourt erred when it probateddefendantconvictedof DWI who was proven to be a repeat offender by of [49.09(a)] not orderinga minimumof threedaysinjait as a condition probation.
138

O.

IF YOUALLEGEMOREPRIORDWI'STHANYOU NEED,MUSTYOU PROVE THEMALL? 1. YES

Jimenez State, v. pdr.ref'd). 981S.W.2d 393(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, ln thisfelonyDWI case,the StateallegedthreepriorDWI'sin the charging instrument thenthe and courtchargedthejury thatif it foundany two of threeto havebeenproved,it wassufficient.Court heldthatit waserrorin thatthe state, alleqinsthreepriorshad increaseditsburdenof proofand by thus had to prove all three priors. Error was found to be harmlessrn fhis case. NOTE: ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL OPINION THAT SEEMS TO DEFY LOGIC AND PRECEDENT. 2. NO

Biederman State v. .2d 1987 ,724 S.W 436(Tex.App.-Eastland , pet.ref'd). Readv. State, pet.ref'd). 955S.W.2d 435(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, Wesley State, v. 997S.W.2d874(Tex.App.-Waco 1999, pet.). no 350S.W.2d 924(Tex.Crim.App. ). 1961 ry, Statemayallege manypriorDWI'sas it wantsand stillneednot proveany morethantwo of as them. P. PROOF THATPRIOR DWIIS WITHIN YEARS OFFENSE 10 OF DATE 1. ONLYONEOF THETWOPRIORS MUSTBE WITHIN YEARS 10 (FORDWrOFFENSES PRTOR 9-1-01) TO

Smithv. State, S.W.3d 1 pet 261(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, ref'd). Held that Stateneed onlyprove that one of the defendant's prior DWI convictions two was for an offense yearsof newoffensedate. TheCourtfurther committed within10 admitsit madea mistake in the dictaof itsopinion Renshaw State,987 W.2d464 (Tex.App.-Texarkana1998) "The in v. . S. Statecorrectlypointsout that dictain the Renshaw caseis in errorin statingthat the Statewould have to prove twoprior DWI convictions withinthe sameten yearperiod." 2. PROOF 10YEARSNOTNECESSARY OF

Summers State,172S.W.3d102(Tex.App.-Texarkana v. 2005,no pet.). St.Clair State,101 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2003, pet.ref'd). S.W.3d737 [1't Weaver State, S.W.3d v. 87 557(Tex.Crim.App.2002). Priors4isted enhancement paragraphswere remote(nointeruening in too conviction bringit under to 10year rule wasalleged)./ssue raised whetherthe Statemust present is evidence interuening of
139

conviction thejury? Is 49.09(e) an element theoffenseof FelonyDWI? Courtof Appeals to of said it is. Courtof CriminalAppeals thisopinion in saysrtis not an elementand the Sfafedoesnot need to offerevidence that conviction thejury, but rather jusfneedsto submitthe proof to the trial of to court whichit did in fhis case. Bower State, S.W.3d514(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2002, ref'd). pet v. 77 [1s Thiswasa felonyDWt trialwherethe Defendant pled trueto the stipulated hispriorDWI's and to enhanQements. enhancements not containthe offensedafesof thepriorsandno evidence The did of the offensedafeswaspresented the Stateduringthe guilUinnocence phase the trial. The by of defendant arguedfhis r,rras failureof proof and cited Renshaw a ThisCourtfindsthat and Smith. thereasoning thosetwoopinions wrongin thatthe accusation twopriorsis all thatis needed of is of to give the Courtjurisdiction. It distinguishes 12.42(d) from 49.09(b). lt also pointsout that if the Sfafe'spriors were stale,the properremedywouldhave been to move to quashthe indictment, objectto the admission the priors,or askfor a lesserchargeof misdemeanor of DWI. Whitewe wait for the Courtof Criminat Appealsto addressffrs rssue,it would seemprudent to go ahead and mention at least one of the offensedafes in the body of our stipulations in felony DWI cases 3. THE10YEARRULEFOROFFENSES FROM TO 9.01.01 8.31-05

Getts State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2005). v. 155 153 Ihis casefel/sus how to applythe 2001amendment the DWI statuteto the questionof how to to calculate priorDWIconvictions bumpthe chargeup to a felonyunder49.09of the Texas in Penal to Code. TheCourtholdsthatprior DWI convictions available enhancement long as they for so are are withintenyearsof eachother,calculating timeperiodby usingfhe c/osesf possib/edates, that whetherthat be the offensedate,date of sentencing, date of releasefrom sentence, including or probationor parole. Forexample, a defendant a 2005DWI arrest if has and hisrecordincludes priorsfrom 1987and two 1993,this caseshouldbe filedas a felonyDWI because twoprior DWI offenses withinten fhe are years of each other-eventhoughmore than ten years time has lapsedsincethe priors and the currentoffense. 4. THE10 YEARRULE'SDEMISE DOESNOTVIOLATE POSTFACTO EX LAW

EffectiveSeptember 2005,the legislature (d) 1, repealedsubsections and (e) of Secfion49.09of the TexasPenal Code. Thismeansthat thereare no age limitations the useof DWI priorsto on enhancefo C/assA or FetonyDWIs. Crocker State, v. 260 S.W.3d 589(Tex.App.-Tyler 2008,no pet.). Thisappealwas basedon the argument that the statute that did away with the ten year rule was a violationof the ex posf facto law. ln rejectingthat argumentthat court held that the previous
1,40

versionof the law that restricted the use of priors was "not an explicitguaranteethat those convictions couldnot be usedin the future,but onlya restriction whatpriorconvictions on couldbe used to enhancean offenseat that time." As a result, changingthe statute did not increase punishment hisprior conviction did not violatehisrightof protection defendant's for and againstex postfactolaws. O. JUDGEMAYNOTTERMINATE SETASIDEDWIPROBATION EARLY OR

ln re Stateof TexasEx Rel.SteveC. Hilbiq 985S.W.2d189(Tex.App.-San Antonio, 1998,no , pet.). Judgehad no authority terminate to and set asidefelonyDWIprobations early- writof prohibition grantedby the Courtof Appeals. R. IN T R OD U C E D JU D GM ENTANDSENTENCEPRESUMEDPROPER 1. NOWAIVER RIGHT JURYTRIAL OF TO

Battle State, v. 989S.W.2d 840(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet.). no WhereStateintroduced copies judgmentswhichwere silent to waiverof ajury trial,the Court of as held that the priorswere properlyadmittedas the "regularity the convictionwas presumed of unless...(the defendant) affirmatively showedthat he did not waive hisright to a jury trial. 2. IN THEABSENCE JUVENILE OF TRANSFER ORDER

Johnson State v. .2d 1987). ,725 S.W 245(Tex.Crim.App. judgmentand sentence defendant State offereda proper and the challenged lackof documentation of a proper transferfromjuvenile giving district courtjurisdiction. The defendantfails to offer any evidencethat there was no transfer. The Court spe//sout the rule as regardspriors as follows: "Oncethe Stateproperlyintroduced judgmentand sentence identifies a with them, and appellant we mustpresumeregularity thejudgments. Theburdenthen shiftsto the defendant, in whomust makean affirmative showingof any defectin thejudgment,whetherthat be to showno waiverof indictment no transferorder." or S. PROBATED DWICONVICTIONS UNDER 6701LMAYBE USEDTO ENHANGE NEWDWIOFFENSES

Ex ParteSerrato, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.1999). 3 41 The Court points out that the relevant penaltyenhancement provides:when provision [a9.09(b)] it is shown on the trial of an offenseunder Secfion49.04 that the personhaspreviouslybeen convicted two times of an offense relating to the "operating of a motor vehicle while
1,41,

intoxicated," the offenseis a felonyof the third degree. 49.09(c)specifically definesthe term "offense relating to the operating of a motor vehicle" to include offense Article6701/-1 an under RevrsedSfafufes, asthatlawexistedbeforeSeptemberl,lgg4.6T0llstated:"Forpurposesoffhrs article,a conviction an offensethat occurson or after January1, 1984,is a final conviction, for whetheror not the sentence the conviction probated." So,by incorporating prior DWI for is the statute, thatlaw existed as beforeenactment the new statute, Legislature of the declareditsintent permitting to continue sfafusquo, whichincluded probatedDWI convictions enhancement fhe for if the offense occurred afterJanuary1, 1984. T. MISDEMEANOR PRIORSARE VALID WHEN DEFENDANT WAIVESJURY WITHOUT ATTORNEY AN

Redfearn State, S.W.3 v. 26 d72g(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000,no pet.). Defendanttried quashenhancement paragraphs to he an because hadnotbeenappointed aftorney prior to waivingthe right to a jury. Court pointsout that under 1.13(c)of TexasCodeof Criminal Procedure right applies that only to felony pleas. SeeA/soMoorev. State. 976 S.W.2d696(Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, pet.). no U. DWISENTENCE MUST INCLUDE JAILTIME

State Maqee, S.W.3d v. 29 639(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2000,petref'd). [1$ judge sentenced Judgment reversed where defendant with firstoffense DWItopay a $250 charged jail. Statute fine withno confinement in clearlyrequiresa minimum72 hoursconfinement jail. in V. ILLEGALSENTENCE ENFORCEABLE DEFENDANT IF ASKED FOR IT OR AGREED IT TO

Mapes State,187S.W.3d v. pet. 655(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2006, ref'd). [14th Stncedefendant pursuant had enjoyedthe benefitof a /esser sentence under hisprior conviction pleaagreement, wasestopped to he from asserting appealthatbecause of hisprior driving one on whileintoxicated (DWI)convictions was void for imposition a sentence of that was lessthan the minimumsentence requiredunderthe statutory range,the TrialCourtwasprecluded from finding guiltyof currentfelonyDWI charges. defendant Ex Parte Shoe,137S.W.3d100(Tex.App.-Fort 15, rehearing WorthJanuary 2004), overruled (Mar18, 2004),petition discretionary for granted (Nov10, 2004),petition discretionary review for review (Oct dismissed 10,2007). Thoughthe defendant's bargainwhich sentenced tojail but did nof assessany fine was plea him illegal,he couldnot later complain abouta sentence he requested, that accepted benefitfrom the whenhe enteredin the plea agreement.

L42

W.

EXPUNCTION WILL NOTALWAYSRENDER FACTS CASE UNDERLYING OF INADMISSIBLE PUNISHMENT IN PHASE

Dotyv. State 2005WL 1240697 (Tex.App.-Austin 26,2005)(mem.op., designated Not for May , publication), pet. dism'd, improvidently granted, No. PD-1159-05,2007 WL 841112 (Tex.Crim.App.2007)(Not designated publication). for In the punishmentphase an lntoxication of Manslaughtercase,the evidence Defendant's of bad driving, appearance, admission drinking, Thatthe of and resultof FSIs washeldto be admissible. Defendant arrested was washeldto be inadmissible. Thiswasthe caseeventhoughthe DWI case in question resulted an acquittal the casewasexpunged.Theofficersaid histestimony in was and basedon hismemoryand not on the records. X. FELONY DWICANBE THEUNDERLYING FELONY A "FELONY IN MURDER'' CHARGE

Alamiv. State, 333S.W.3d 881(Tex.App.-Fort reh.overruled). Worth2011, FelonyDWI can serve as the underlyingfelony in a felony-murder prosecution. Jones State, v. 2008WL 2579897 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2008,pdrfiled)(Notdesignated [14 for publication). Inuphotdingthisfelonymurderconviction,thecourtrejectedaltofthedefendanf'spornfs. TheCourt foundthattheunderlying DWIwasproperly considered afelony,thattherewasno needto allege as a culpablemental state,and that felonymurderand intoxication manslaughter were not in pari materia. Mendoza State,2006WL 2328508 v. (Tex.App.-ElPaso,2006,pdr ref'd)(notdesignated for publication). ln affirmingthis felonymurderconviction, Courtheld that sincefelonyDWI is not a lesserthe includedoffense manslaughter, of felonyDWImaybe the underlying felonyfortheoffenseof felony murder. lt furtherheld that whenfelonyDWI is the underlying felony,the Stateis not requiredto provea culpable mentalsfafeas felonyDWI requiresno suchproof. Strickland State,193 pdr v. S.W.3d 662(Tex.Ap.-Fort Worth2006, ref'd). Ihis caseinvolved offenderwhoin the courseof committing felonyDWI drovethe wrongway an a down a highwayand crashedinto an oncomingvehicle,killing the front seaf passenger. The defensearguedthat the proper chargewas "intoxication manslaughter" that the Statewas and barredfromproceeding the doctrineof "parimateria." In rejectingthat argument, Courtof by the Appealsfound that the felony murder statute and intoxication manslaughter requireddifferent elements of proof. Penalties for felony murder and intoxicationmanslaughterwere different; althoughboth statutes servedgeneralpurposeof imposingcriminalresponsibility death and for
L43

preventinghomicide,their objectiveswere nof so closelyrelated as tojustify interpretingsfafufes together, purpose. and statutes werenot enactedwith common Lomaxv. State,233 S.W.3d302 (Tex.Crim.App.2007), habeas reliefdenied,2008WL 5085653 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2008,pet.ref'd). [14th Ihrs caseinvolved offender an whoin the course committing of felonyDWI wasspeeding, weaving in and out of traffic, tail-gatingand engagingin aggressivedrivingwhichresultedin a crashand a death. The defenseraised a numberof argumentsagainstthe state'sdecisionto chargethe defendantwith felonymurder. Ihe issuesraised were:theindictmentfailed allegea mentalstate, to that felonydrivingwhileintoxicatedmergeswith felonymurder,insufficientevidencehe committed an "act clearlydangerous humanlife," -all of which were rejectedby the Court of Criminal to Appeals. Hollin State,227 v. S.W.3d117(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2006,pet.ref'd). [1s Ihis case involveda chargeof felonymurder wherethe underlyingfelony was a felonyDWl. The felonymurderand intoxication manslaughter stafufeswere not in pari materia,and accordingly, defendant'sconduct,namely killing someonewith his vehiclewhile he was driving under the influence, wasnot exclusively governed the offense intoxication by manslaughter, therefore of and it waswithinSfafe'sdiscretion chargedefendant to for withfelonymurder;penalties felonymurder and intoxication manslaughter were different,the two statuteswere not containedin the same legislative acts, intoxication manslaughter felonymurder notrequire and sameelements proof, did of and the sfafufeswerenot intendedto achievesamepurpose. Y. DWIW/CHILD CAN BE THE UNDERLYING IN FELONY A FELONY MURDER CHARGE

Biqon State, v. 252S.W.3d 360(Tex.Crim.App.2008). Thedefendant wasconvicted felonymurder,intoxication of and manslaughter manslaughter. The Courtdismissed intoxication the manslaughter manslaughter it foundthey werethe same and as jeopardypurposes.Ihe Courtrejects argument thecharge as thefelonymurderfor double the that couldnot standbecausethe Statefailedto allegeor prove a mentalsfafe. lt furtherrejectedthe argument theact clearlydangerous not donein furtherance theundertying that was of felonyof DWI w/Child. Courtof CriminalAppeals affirmed. Z. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER TO PRIOR MAYNOTBE USED ENHANCE A DWITO A FELONY

Ex ParteRoemer, S.W.3d 215 887(Tex.Crim.App., 2007). prior conviction involuntary Defendant's for manslaughter which was an "offenserelatingto the operating a motorvehicle of whileintoxicated," corld be usedto enhancehisoffense drivingwhile of
L44

but (DWI)froma C/assB misdemeanorto C/assAmisdemeanor, couldnot, by itself, a intoxicated required be usedto enhancehisDWt offenseto a felony;to raiseDWI to a felony. The statute as manslaughter was used prior conviction intoxication not manslaughter, involuntary for eithera by in this case. Louvierev. Stateabrogated thisopinion. JEOPARDY XXV. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL/DOUBLE A. FINDINGS GOURT JUSTICE

1992). 103(Tex.Crim.App. 837 Statev. Groves, S.W.2d Justicecourtfindingthatpolicedid not haveprobablecausefo sfop vehiclewill not have estoppel DWI prosecution. effecton Sfafe's subseguent B. HEARINGS PROBATION REVOCATION

pet.ref'd). 1994, Fuentes State, v. 880S.W.2d 857(Tex.App.-Amarillo no Worth1994, pet.). Weaver, S.W.2d 855(Tex.App.-Fort Ex Parte 880 hearingthereis no Wherenew DWI is allegedin petitionto revokebut waivedprior to revocation to evidence revoke. estoppelwhencourt doesnot find sufficient collateral AS NOTE:HAD IT NOT BEENWAIVEDANDA NEGATIVEFINDINGBEENENTERED TO DWI OF FURTHERPROSECUTIONTHE THATWOULD PRECLUDE ALLEGATIONIN PETITION THE APP.1986). CRIM. 195 TARVER,725S.W.2d (TEX. DWrCHARGE EX PARTE UNDER C. DOUBLE JEOPARDY ALR HEARINGS-NO 1. TESTS BASED BREATH ON ALR SUSPENSIONS

1996). Ex Parte Tharp, 157(Tex.Crim.App. 935S.W.2d havinga breath test ln this casethere wasan ALR license suspensionbasedon the defendant's jeopardyas the ALRdisposition not did greater.Courtheldthattherewasno double result .10 or of "punish ment." constitute 2. TESTREFUSALS BASED BREATH ON ALR SUSPENSIONS

1996pet.ref'd). Ex Parte Anthonv, S.W.2d 931 664(Tex.App.-Dallas, pet.ref'd). 1996, Antonio Williamson, S.W.2d 414(Tex.App.-San Ex Parte 924 pet Worth1996, ref'd). Vasquez, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 73 Ex Parte 918 test Blockburqer Whenthe ALRsuspension basedon a breathtestrefusal,the "sameelements" is jeopardy. TheCourtfoundthe elementthat differswasthat in the is not met so thereis no doubte to had an opportunity and refused ALR suspensionhearing,it must be proventhat the defendant to submitto a breathtest.
L45

pet.ref'd). Johnson State,920 v. S.W.2d 692 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1996, [1st jeopardy. Ihis caseinvolved refusalto givea breathsampleand the Court Courtfoundno double a "sameelementstest"was not met. foundthat the Blockburqer pet.ref'd). Ex PartePee,926S.W.2d 615(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1996, [1st DWI is nof a /esserincludedoffenseof having license suspended. D. ALR HEARINGS: COLLATERAL NO ESTOPPEL

Reynolds State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.1999). v. 4 13 Ex ParteDunlap, S.W.2d no 963 954(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1998, pet.). State Anderson,974 v. 1998, pet.). no S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 193 Antonio pet.ref'd). Ex ParteRichards, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 968 1998, 567 Christi Adoptsthehotdingand togic Brabson precedent. did a of as Thiscase, untike Brabson. involve hearingunderthe new "ALR"statute. State Brabson, S.W.2d v. 966 493(Tex.Crim.App.1998). partiesfor administrative Based upona findingthat the districtattorneyand DPSare not the same collateralestoppel, Courtfoundthat collateralestoppel not preclude the district attorney the did judge foundthat there was no from litigatingfhe rssueof probablecauseafter the administrative probablecausefor the stop. (Note:thiswas not a hearingunderthe new ALR statute.) pet. Ex Parte Serna, 957S.W.2d 598(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, ref'd). (Aftergrantingthe State's motionfor rehearing banc,thecourtwithdrewitsMay8, 1gg7,opinion en andjudgmentin whichit heldthatcollateral to estoppel preventthe Statefromattempting prove did a breathtestthat had previously beenexcluded duringan ALRhearingand held as follows.) The Sfafeis nofbarredby "collateral estoppel" fromrelitigating issue the admissibility thebreath of the of test. "Thelegislature not intendthata decision remediallicense did madein a civil,administrative, suspension hearingcouldbe usedto bar the Statefromprosecuting drunkdrivers." Ex ParteElizabeth Ayers, no 921S.W.2d 438(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1996, pet.). [1st Judgeat ALRhearings madefindingof fact that therewasno reasonable to suspicion supportthe stopof the defendant. ln holdingthat there was no collateralestoppel, courtreasonedthat the probablecausedeterminations ALRhearings madeon thebasisof theinformation available at are at the timeof the arrestand do not considerfactscomingto lightafterthe arrest,including fact the preclusion.Courtrelied thataccused refusedto givea specimen.Therefore therecanbe no issue heavilyon the Neayesopinion.
1,46

Holmbero State,931 pet.ref'd). v. S.W.2d 3(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1996, [1st Sameholding in theAyers casecitedabove. Thedefense as reliance argument wasthatthecourt's process, on Neaves a precedentwas as misplaced revocation unliketheoldone, asthenew license providesfor a full and fair hearing. ln rejectingthat argument, court points that the holding the out in Neaves procedure, ratheron the fact thatthe "ultimate wasnot dependent the on rssue(s) of but ultimatefact are, nevertheless different" betweenthe two proceedings. Ex ParteMcFall, S.W.2d 939 799(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, pet.). no Eventhoughat an ALRhearingthejudge foundthat DPSdid not proveby a preponderance the of evidence that therewas a reasonable suspicion stopthe defendant to and deniedthe petitionto jeopardyor collateralestoppel suspendher license,this did not bar the Stateon double grounds prosecuting defendant DWl. from subsequently the for v. Church State 942S.W.2d 139(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997 pet.ref'd). , , [1st judge'sfindingthat DPSdid not provedefendant ALR was operating motorvehicleand denialof a motionfo suspendlicense not bar prosecution DWI basedon collateralestoppel. did of Toddv. State,956 (Tex.App.-Waco pet.ref'd). S.W.2d777 1997, proceeding Administrative judge'sdetermination "noprobablecause"in license law of suspension proceeding. did not collaterallyesfop trial court from relitigatingprobable causer'ssue criminal rn Primarybasisfor rulingwas that license suspension was not "punishment." E. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BARTO PROSECUTING DEFENDANT BOTH FOR 1. DWI& DWLS

Statev. Rios,861S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston pet.ref'd). 42 [14thDist.]1993, A defendant be prosecuted both DWLSand DWI whenthey arisefrom the samecriminal can for jeopardy. episode withoutviolating rule againstdouble the 2. DWI& FSRA

v. State Marshall, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas pet. 814 789 1991) ref'd). A defendant be prosecuted both FSRAand DWI whenthey arisefrom the same criminal can for jeopardy. episode withoutviolating rule againstdouble the

1 A'7

3.

FELONY DWI& INTOXIGATION ASSAULT

Rowe v. State 2OO4 (Tex.App.-Dallas WL 1050693 for 2004,pet. ref'd) (Not designated , publication). jeopardyfails. lntoxication Underthe Blockburqer test,defendant's claimof double assault differs fromfelonyDWIin thatit requires showing defendant a that bodilyinjuryto another. causedserious FelonyDWI differsfrom intoxication assault that it requiresproof of two prior DWI convictions. in 4. DWI& CHILD ENDANGERMENT

Baqbvv. State,2007WL 704931(Tex.App.-Fort for Worth 2007,no pet.)(not designated publication). jeopardyviolation prosecuting defendant In determining there wasno double in this withbothDWI and Endangering Child,the Courtfoundthatthe childendangerment permifted a charge conviction undermultiple theoriesthatwere present the drivingwhileintoxicated not in charge.Afterapplying the Blockburqer test,the Courtheld that each charging instrument requiresproof of an additional jeopardyviolation. elementthat the other doesnot. Therefore, there hasbeenno double Ex Parte Walters.2006 WL 1281076(Tex.App.-FortWorth 2006) (not designated for publ ication)(pet. ). ref'd. Becausethe offenseof drivingwhileintoxicated requiresproof of an additional element -"irl s publicplace"that the offense endangering child doesnot, it is not a /esserincluded of a offenseof jeopardy purposes. endangering child,and the two offenses not the samefor double a are Statev. Guzman, S.W.3d 182 389(Tex.App.-Austin 2005,no pet.). Prosecution child endangerment for that urasbased on allegationthat defendantdrove while intoxicatedwith child underage 15 aspassenger was not barredby prohibitionagainstdouble pledguiltyto DWI. DWI did not requireproofthatdefendant intentionally, ieopardyafterdefendant knowingly, recklessly, with criminal placedchildin imminentdangerof death,injury or negligence or physicalormentalimpairment. F. OCCUPATIONALDRIVER'SLICENSE/ALRSUSPENSIONS

StateEx Rel.Gilfeather, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 937 46 Worth1996, pet.). no Countycriminalcottt, whichhad no civiljurisdiction,had no authorityto grant an occupational driver'slicense a defendant to whenthe defendant had not been convicted the DWI casefrom of whichfhe suspension aroseand casewas stillpendingin that court.

1,48

G.

NO CONFLICT BETWEEN "DUI''AND "DWI''STATUTE

1999, pet.). no Findlav State, S.W.3d v. 9 397(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th Thereis no conflict betweentheDWt and DlJlsfafufes andit wasproper for the Sfafe fo opt to prosecute was under21 underthe DWI statuteratherthanthe DUI statute eventhoughdefendant yearsof age. H. AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT NO CONVICTION FOR BOTHINTOXICATION ASSAULT SBI

by Burke State, S.W.2d v. vacated remanded 28 S.W.3d and 6 Worth1999) 312(Tex.App.-Fort submitted S.W.3d82 80 545 (Tex.Crim.App. opinion 2000)opinion withdrawn and substitute (Tex.App.-FortWorth2002). Assau/f SBIand Intoxication Defendantwas convictedupon a plea of guilty to both Aggravated jeopardybarredconvictions both casesand in Assault. The Courtof Appeals foundthat double Assau/f vacated Aggravated Assault Aggravated the and Assault conviction findingthatlntoxication were in "pari materia"so both convictions could not stand and further finding that Intoxication provision, Assau/fbeingthe more specific wouldcontrol. [The doctrineof "PariMateria"statesthat provision, provisions if whena generalprovisionconflictswitha specific shouldbe construed, the possrb/e, that effectis givento both and if they cannotbe reconciled, specificcontrols.l(6 the so S.W.3d 312, Tex.App.-FortWorth1999). The Courtof CriminalAppeals and that neitherwas foundthat provisions werenot "parimateria" controllingover the other. The Court did not disturb the holding that doublejeopardy barred convictions underboth charges. The Statehad discretion to whichoffenseto prosecufe.Case as wasremanded back to Courtof Appeals. S.W.3d545 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)]. [28 shouldstand Uponremand, Courtof Appeals Assault conviction the maintained thelntoxication that pleain theAggravated andtheAggravafedAssa conviction ult by shouldbereversed findingthatthe Assau/fcase was involuntary, remanding for a new trial.I80 S.W.3d82 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth it jeopardywouldnot properlybe beforeit unless 2002)] TheCourtfoundthat theissuesof double or untilthe Statechoseto re-trythe Defendant the Aggravated Assau/fSBIcharge. on I. EFFECT LOSINGONE BT THEORY FIRSTTRIALON SUBSEQUENT AT OF TRIAL

Ex ParteCrenshaw, S.W.3d761(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 25 2000,pet.ref'd). [1$ WhereCourtheldBT results wereinadmssible thecourseofjury trialandthengranteda mistrial. in Statecouldretrydefendant DWI and couldrely on fhe /ossof faculties theorybut couldnot rely for on the 0.10alcoholconcentration theory.

L49

J.

TRIALON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BARSINTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER DIFFERENT INTOXICANT

Ex Parte Taylor, S.W.3d434(Tex.Crim.App.2002). 101 After being acquittedof lntoxication Manslaughter alleged was where the theoryof intoxication alcohol,the Statetriedto proceedon anothercase,differentvictim,and now addingmarijuana as possib/e a sourceof intoxication.CollateralEstoppel barred Statefromrelitigatingultimateissue of intoxication, regardless whetherSfafeallegeddifferenttype of intoxicant. of K. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDYWHERE FAULW UNDERLYING DWI PRIOR ALLEGATION DENIES COURT JURISDICTION

Gallemore State, v. 312S.W.3d 156(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2010). After an openplea of guiltyto felonyDWI and at a laterpunishment hearing,the defensepointed outthatoneof the underlying DWI'sthat wasalleged makethechargea felonywasa subseguenf to not a previousconviction. The defenseaskedto be sentenced the misdemeanor for DWl. The granteda mistrial Court instead after statingit had nojurisdiction the case. The Statethenrein indictedand replacedthe defective prior with a good one. The defensefiled a writ statingthat jeopardyhad attachedin the formerproceeding. The Courtof Appealsheld that double double jeopardyprinciplesdo not forbidmultipletrials of a singlecriminalchargeif the first trial resultedin a mistrialthat (1) wasjustified under the manifesfnecessifydoctrine;or (2) was requestedor prosecutorial consented by the defense,absent to misconduct whichforcedthe mistrial. Ihis case fell under"manifestnecessity" because trialcourtdid not havejurisdiction. the XXVI. PUTTING DEFENDANT BEHIND THEWHEEL A. DEFENDANTSTATEMENTTHAT HE WAS DRIVER = SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED

Nieschwietz State, (Tex.App.-San v. 2006WL 1684739 Antonio 2006,pet.ref'd). ln this case,the defendantchallenged sufficiency the evidenceto establish that he was the of drivinqon a publichighwaywhileintoxicated,because extrajudicialconfession the videotape on his (thathe wasmakinga turnwhenthe othercarhit him)wasnot corroborated otherevidence.The by Courtfoundthat the defendant'sadmission the videotape in that he was drivingthe vehiclewas sufficiently corroborated his presence the scene, vehicle listinghim by insurance documents at the as ownerof the vehicle, wasthe and the officer's that opinionbased hisinvestigation defendant on driver. Frve State v. (Tex.App.-Dallas for 2004, pet.)(Notdesignated publication). no ,2004WL 292660 Trooper who was dispatched sceneof accident fo teaning against of pickup bed saw defendant truck. Askedif he was okay,the defendant repliedhe was "goingtoo fastto negotiate corner the and he wreckedthe vehicle." He did not sayhow long he had been at the scene. He appeared intoxicated admitted havinghadsomebeerswhilehe wasfishingearlierthatday. No fishing and to
150

equipmentwas obserued the vehicle. Courtfoundthat the officer'stestimonyand the station in providedsufficient housevideo he corroboration hisstatement was driving. of Youens State, v. 988S.W.2d404(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1999, pet.). no [1't Wheredefendant was seafedin truckwithenginerunning,hisstatement the scenethat he was at drivingthe truck when the accidenthappenedand furtherstatementthat 20 to 25 minuteshad providedsufficient elapsedsincethe accident occurred wasdriving basisforjury to find defendant whileintoxicated. pet.ref'd). Walker State, v. 701S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 2 1985, Christi Statement defendantto by officerat accidentsitethathe wasdriversufficient evidence provehe to was driver. Bucek State v. Worth1987, pet.). no ,724 S.W.2d 129(Tex.App.-Fort Defendant's sfafement he wasthe drivermay be sufficient that whenothercorroborating evidence is available. Folkv. State, 797S.W.2d pet.ref'd). 141(Tex.App.-Austin 1990, Providedthereis otherevidencethat a "crimewascommitted" identification the defendant of the (i.e.,statement as the perpetrator In that he was driver)may restaloneupon hisconfessrbn. any event,proof that car wasregistered persondefendant corroboration. to lived with = sufficient B. SUFFICIENTCORROBORATIONOF'DRIVING/OPERATING''

Molina State,2010 980560 v. (Tex.App.-Amarillo WL 2010). Officers werecalled to investigatesuspicious out a vehicle a cul-de-sac upon in and arrival observed defendant asleep behind wheel thevehicle. the ignition the and of The keyswerein the vehicle's car and radiowerebothon. Defendant alsoin a position the vehicle was in that he was ableto reachthe brakepedal. The policeofficers proceeded wakehim and,after conducting field to sobriety tests, arrested fordriving him whileintoxicated. holding hadproved operating, the In State Courtpoints thatany person out intending drivewouldfirsthaveto turnthe keyto startthe car; to the fact thatthe keywas turned and the engine was running couldbe interpreted thejury as by operating vehicle. the Though oneobserved no the appellant thevehicle, factthatdefendant start wastheonlyperson the vehicle, in the driver's in is and the seat,andableto operate brakelights circumstantial guilt. evidence thejurycouldhaveusedin determining that

151

for Roane State , 2010 WL 3399036(Tex.App.-Dallas v. 2Q10,no pet.) (Not designated publication). In thiscasea 911 call abouta majoraccident officerto arriveat sceneof crashwherehe found led defendantoutsideof the vehicle. Courtheld evidencesufficientthat defendanthad driven the had doorof the vehicle, vehicle basedon factthatdefendant foundstanding nextto thedriver's was prohibited fromdriving. her the vehiclebkeysin hispocket,and told officerthat passenger's injury (Notdesignated for (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] Ledet State,20Og 2050753 v. 2009, pet.) no WL [1't publication). Policedispatcher receivedapproximately reports a disabled blockingtwo lanesof traffic car 15 of on the freeway. Whenofficerarrivedat the scene around 6:00 a.m., he saw that the car was perpendicular the flow of traffic,blocking of the freeway's four lanes,locatedapproximately to two quartermile from the nearest freeway a freewayexitramp and 200 to 300yardsfrom the nearest entrance ramp. Defendant was unconscious sittingin the driver'sseat,whichwasin the "laidand back position." The car'senginewas running,the transmission was in the "park"gear, and the driver'swindowwas down. Defendantsmelledof alcoholand eventuallywoke up after officer administered "sternumrubs." Defendant two fesfg and admittedon refusedto take field-sobriefy he cross-examination had no ideahow long the car had been stopped the freeway,whether he on had driventhe car, or if anotherpassenger had been in the car beforehe arrivedatthe scene. Court held evidencewas sufficientand cites to other cases that remind us that "reasonable hypothesis" standard gone. is (Tex.App.-Amarillo Villav. State, 2009WL2431511 2009,pet.ref'd). Defendant's vehiclewas found parked in the landscapedarea of the apartmentcomplexwith headlights enginerunningand defendant on, sittingbehindthe wheelwithhisheadrestingagainst the steeringwheel. Defendant hisvehiclewas in park and that no one saw him start, arguesthat shift, or otherwiseoperatethe vehicle. The Courtrejectedthis argumentpointingout that even place,therewas thoughtherewasno directevidence showdefendant to drovethe car to itsresting Iegallyand factually sufficient circumstantial that he did so. evidence (Tex.App.-Fort Watson State, v. 2008WL 5401497 Worth2008,pet.ref'd). In this case a taxicab driver testified that he observeda vehicledriving erraticallyon the date in question and reportedthe incidentto thepolice. An officerin the vicinitytestified that he founda vehicle matching the descriptiongiven by the taxi driver stopped on a grassy median with the defendantslouchedover in the driver's seat with the lightson and enginerunning. Citing the Denton case,the Court statedthat it rejectedthe contention that to operatea vehiclewithinthe meaning the statute, driver'spersonal of to the effortmustcausethe automobile eithermoveor not a move. Purposely of causingor restraining is actualmovement not the onlydefinition "operating" proof of "operating" motorvehicle. motorvehicle. In this casetherewas sufficient a

L52

Worth2008,no pet.). Dornbusch State, v. 262S.W.3d432(Tex.App.-Fort parkinglot withheadlights engine on, Wheredefendant's vehiclewas foundin back of restaurant out, or running, radioplayingloudly,and defendant wassittingin driver'sseateitherasleep passed and there was testimonyindicatingthat vehiclewas not in park and that the only thing keeping his that he was "operating" evidence vehiclefrom movingwas the curb- then that was sufficient motorvehicle. (Tex.App.-Corpus no 2007, pet.). Vasquez State,2007WL 2417373 v. Christi Officerfounddefendantasleep the driver'sseaf of his vehiclewith the enginerunning,the gear in laneson in "park," in and the headlights on. Thevehiclewassituated the centerof two eastbound he to a publicroadway.Afterofficerapproached vehicle, proceeded openthedriver'ssidedoor, the and as he leaned insidethe car to turn off the engine,he noticeda strong odor of alcoholon wokeup and was atfirst but ultimately defendant's breathand person. Appellantwas unresponsive proof of operating. determined be intoxicated.Evidence to held to be sufficient Dist.]2006, pet. ref'd) (Not Carteoena State,2006 WL 278404(Tex.App.-Houston v. [14th for designated publication). Casewhereofficer first spotteddefendant's vehicleparkedon the shoulderof the roadwayand defendantstandingnext to it urinating. Driver'sseaf was empty and his wife was in the front passengerseat. Held that hisstatement corroborated. that he was drivingwas sufficiently pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Fort Farmer State,2006 3844169 v. WL WorthDec28,2006, Officernoticeda car on the shoulderthat had its hazard lightson. He testifiedthat a female appearedto be changing flat tire. He and anothertrooperstoppedfo see if the femaleneeded a of In the assisfance noticedsheappeared be intoxicated. attacking sufficiency theproofthat and to points the fact that therewasno evidence the car's that the defendant operated vehicle,she her to the engine was runningor had been runningbefore the troopersapproached car, that neither was warm, that there was no trooper testifiedthat the vehicle'shood or engine compartment saw it, evidence showhow longthe car had beenparkedin the accessroadbeforethe troopers to that the statefailed to offer any evidencethat she was the owner of the car, that no wifnesses to testified theysaw her operatethe car,and thattherewasno evidence link herphysicalstate that had at the sceneof the arrestto herphysicalstateat the timeof theallegeddriving. Thedefendant corroborated sufficient toldtheofficers wasonherwayhomefromDenton. Thisstatementwas she about ten milesoutsideof by the evidencethat the troopershad stoppedto help the defendant road. The service Denton. Thedefendant's withtheflattire, wasin themiddleof the lnterstate car, troopers notedthatthedefendant's andthatthekeyswerein theignition. hazard lightswereflashing Althoughthe troopersremainedat the scene for an extendedperiod of time, no one besrdes the defendantapproached car. The Court held that this evidencesufficientlycorroborated the defendant's ertrajudicialadmission shewason her wayhomefromDentonand wastherefore that operating motorvehicle. a

1_ 53

Younov. State,2005WL 1654763 (Tex.App.-Fort for Worth 2005,no pet.)(Not designated publication). judicial statements he consumed to eight beers, he drovethe vehicle Defendant's extra that that six on thefreeway /osfcontrolweresufficiently and by he corroborated testimony u/asfoundnextto the parkedon shoulderof roadway,facingwrongdirection, vehicle, smelledof alcohol,and failedor refused varioussobriefyfesfs. Claiborne State, v. (Tex.App.-Fort 2005WL2100458 Worth, 2005,no pet.)(Notdesignated for publication). Wifnesses sawappellant's beingdrivenerratically.One witnesssaw appellantwalkingaway car fromthedriver'ssidedoorminutes walked afterhe sawthe car beingdriven.Additionally, appellant awayfrompoliceofficers intoa grocerystoreafterthepolicecalledout to him. Aftertheofficers and foundappellant, led them to the car that witnesses he had seendrivingerratically.Underthese facts,the Courtheld that therewassufficient proof that the defendant "operated" motorvehicle. a Newell State, v. (Tex.App.- FortWorth,2005, pet.)(notdesignated 2005WL 2838539, no for publication). At 3:05a.m.,policeofficersfound defendant in asleep the driver'sseatof hisvehiclewiththeengine running,the gearin "park," headlights and hisfoot on the brakepedal. Thecar wason the the on, shoulder the l-20 rampdirectlyoverthe southbound of lanesof GreatSouthwest Parkway, area an whereit is generallyunsafeto park. Uponawakening defendant, was determined was he the it intoxicated.Defendant proof of operating vehiclebecause claimedthat therewas insufficient the no witnesssaw defendant drivethe vehicleto the locationor knewhow long he had beenparked there,howlonghe hadbeenintoxicated, if anyoneelsehaddriventhecar. Courtof Appeals held or evidencewas sufficient. The TexasCourtof CriminalAppealshasheld that "ftl to find operation under[the DWI] standard, totalityof the circumstances the musf demonstrate the defendant that tookactionto affectthe functioning [the] vehicle a mannerthatwouldenablethe vehiclebuse." of in Althoughdrivingalwaysinvolves operation a vehicle, of operation a vehicledoesnot necessarily of alwaysinvolvedriving. Peters TexasDepartment PublicSafety,2005WL 3007783 v. (Tex.App.-Dallas of 2005, no pet.)(Not designated publication). for Suspecf found asleep driver'sseatof a car parkedin a fieldnearhighwayfrontage in road (record doesnot speakto whethercar was running). It took severalattemptsto wakesuspecfwho was observedto have bloodshoteyes,slurred speech, and odor of alcohol. Officernoted there was damage frontendof car. Defendant to admitted hadbeendrinking night. Refused do FSIs he all fo and refusedto give breathsample. Theabovewas held to be sufficient probablecauseto arrest suspecffor DWl.

L54

pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Fort Worth,2004, Benedict State,2004WL 2108837, v. Citizencalled dispatchregardingsuspicrbusvehicleparked in roadwayfor almost two hours with its lightson. Thevehiclewas stoppedin the roadwaywith its keysin the ignitionand in drive. The that the car wasin a lane of traffic two front tireswereon rims. Whenofficerarrived,he observed wereon, up againstan island median,the enginewasrunning,the car wasin gear,the headlights on and appellant's was on the brake. Theofficertestified foot that damageshe observed the car's the wheelswasconsistent withthe wheelsscraping curb,and it appeared car had beendriven the fo wassufficient issue operating.In response theargument of on its rims. Courtfoundevidence on preventeditsbeingdriven,the Courtheld that the Statedid not that the car'smechanical condition car. have to prove that appellant droveor operated fully-functional a for Yokomv. State,2004WL 742888(Tex.App.-FortWorth 2004,pdr ref'd)(Not designated publication). proved"operating." officerfound defendant hisparked in the On therssueof whethertheState The vehicle with motor runningand slumpedover the wheel of the car. He also found him to be intoxicatedand the defendantadmitted to consumingalcohol earlier. There were no open operatedhistruck containers the car. Thecourtheld that regardless whetherthe defendant in of presence, rationaltrier factcouldhavefoundbeyonda reasonable doubtthathe in the officer's of a whenhe did so. operatedhistruckprior to the officer'sarrivaland that he wasintoxicated (Tex.App.-Dallas Freeman State,69 v. 2002, pet.). no S.W.3d374 Officerfounddefendantin her FordExplorerwith itsright front tire againsta curb, itsmotorrunning, womanin thedriver's thegearin the "drive"position, its lights He triedto rousethesleeping and on. and arrestedher for DWl. The seat,but shedid not respondat first.Ultimately, wokeher up he exerted whileintoxicated, Courtfound thatthecircumstantialevidence indicated thatthedefendant, personaleffort upon her vehicleby causingthe motor to be running,the lights to be on, and by wheelrestedagainstthe shiftingthe gearto drive.Further,as the resultof her effort,the vehicle's curb of a public sfreef. Convictionaffirmed. no Hearne State, S.W.3d v. 80 677(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2002, pet.). [1"t Defendant's truckwasparkedin a movinglane of trafficon a seruiceroad. Hishead wasresting handandleaningagainstthe driver'ssidewindow. Theotherhandwasnear hiswaist. The on one or enginewasrunning;gearshiftwas in park. He was not touchingthe accelerator brakepedals. Theofficerdid nof see the defendantexertany actionto attemptto controlthe truck. Courtheld that proof of "operating" therewas sufficient citingDentonand Barton. v. April Chaloupka State, S.W.3d172(Tex.App.-Texarkana, 18,2000,pet ref'd). 20 "legal standard. sufficiency" Thefollowing factswereheldto be sufficient undertheNewPosf-Geesa lane and Two witnesses obseryed defendant drivingerratically-atonepoint drivinginto adjoining got hittinganothervehicleand thencontinuing driveoff at a highrate of speed.One witness the to
155

licensenumberof the defendant'svehicle. Police with aid of 4icense number and notice that was defendant in a restareafounddefendant restarea. A r,rrifness restareanoticeddefendant at in get outof hisvehiclewithtwobeer bottles a sackand notedhe wasstumbling had difficulty and and with hisbalance was andproceeded urinatein public. Whenofficerarrivedat scene, defendant to sittingon a benchand drinking FSTs and was beerand wasobviously intoxicated. Defendantfailed arrestedfor DWl. Restarea was a couple milesfrom sceneof collision. Gooddrbcussion old of standard requiredthe "reasonable that in v. hypothesis" whichwasreplaced Geesa State. analysis 820 S.W.2d154(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). Hernandez State,13 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana v. 78 2000,no pet.). placeddefendant the driver'ssideof a pickup ln DWI accident, evidence that showedwitness on truckthatbelonged him immediately for to wassufficient evidence jury to findhe afterthe accident, wasdriving. Thiswasthe caseeventhoughdefendant thepoliceat the sceneandlateron the told tape that someoneother than himself was drivingand no wifnesscould testify that they saw defendant driving. pet Purvis State, S.W.3d118(Tex.App.-Waco v. 4 1999, ref'd). Defendant foundby civilian was was wifness hispickupin a ditch,withtrucklightson. Defendant in passedout on floorboard passenger withfeet on driver sideand headon slde. No one elsein the area. Evidenceat the scene appearedto show path truck traveledfrom the road. Defendant admitted driving, appeared intoxicated underNewPosfGeesa andfailedHGN-sufficientevidence Standard and oral admission that defendant was drivingwas sufficiently corroborated. pet.ref'd). (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1999, Gowans State, v. 995S.W.2d787 [1't Here the factswere that the defendant whiledrivingleft the highwayand droveonto lP'sprivate driveway, strikingthe car lP was sitting causinghisdeath. Thedefendant in, arguedthat sincethe privateproperty,the Statefailed to prove the publicplace element. The car that he struck was on Courtheld that evidence that he droveon publichighwayprior to accidentwas sufficient. Milam State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 976 788 1998, pet.). no [1d 1) 2) 3) 4) defendant was found asleep hiscar in whichhe was the soleoccupant; in enginewasrunningand hisfoot wason the brake; evidence showedcar had beenat the locationlessthan 5 minutes; put whenawakened, defendant car in reverse =sufficient "operated" car. evidence defendant his

Kerrv. State, 921S.W.2d 498(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1996, pet.h.). no Heldthat therewas sufficient factualcorroboration defendant's statement he wasdriverto that of prove he "operated motor vehicle." Namely,that witnesshearda car slidinginto gravel and the immediately get cameoutsideof his house sawdefendant out of the car whichwasin the ditch. and
156

Statev. Savage, S.W.2d497(Tex.Crim.App. 933 1996). 1) 2) 4) 5) 6) policefounddefendant's truckstoppedon entrance ramp of highway; defendantsittingbehindthe wheel asleep; hisfeet wereon floorboard; headlights wereon and enginewasrunning; gearshiftwas in park; no emptyalcoholic beveragecontainers werein car.

s)

Wrioht State, v. 932S.W.2d 572(Tex.App.-Tyler 1995, pet.). no Basisfor stopcameoverradiodispatch whereconcerned citizenobserued bad drivingand got the closeenoughto seetherewasonlyone person the vehicleand then lostsightof defendant in who droveaway. Officerfoundvehicle thatmatcheddescription in stopped theroadwaywith hisfooton the brakepedal. Eventhoughcitizencouldnot identifydriverin court,it washeld there wasenough proof forjury to find defendant was the samepersondriving. Denton State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1995). v. 911 388 To find "operation" a motorvehicle,thetotatityof the circumstances of musf demonstrate the that defendant took actionto affectthe functioning hisvehiclethat wouldenablethe vehiclebuse. of Starting ignitionand rewing the accelerator sufficient.Courtrejectedargument some the was that actualmovement wasrequiredand citedBarton. Barton State,882 v. S.W.2d 456(Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, pet.). no Officer found vehicle standing still in roadway with engine idling. Motorist was alone in early morning hoursand was asleep behindwheelwithfeeton clutchandbrake.Whenaroused police by officer,motoristimmediatelyexerted personaleffort to control truck and affect functioning by engaging clutch,changing gears,andreaching startenginewhichhad beenturnedoff by officer. to Discussion the rejectionof the "reasonable of rejectedin Geesa. Lookingat hypothesis standard" the totality of the circumstances,Court held the evidencewas sufficient.ln so finding, the Court "We do not acceptthe contention explained: that to operatea vehiclewithinthe meaningof the statute, driver'spersonaleffortmust causethe automobile eithermoveor not move." the to Turner State 877S.W.2d513(Tex.App.-Fort v. Worth1994, pet.). no , 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) police respond accident to scene; defendant standing nextto car; steamcoming fromhoodof car; electricity transformer appeared havebeenhit and to electricity wentoutabout15 minutes before; defendant admitted driving.

Thiscaseheldthatdefendant's admission driving, not needonlybe of though sufficient itself, by corroborated someotherevidence. by
1-57

pet.ref'd). Nichols State,877 v. Worth1994, S.W.2d494(Tex.App.-Fort 1) 2) wifnessvieweddefendant state; driveawayfromparty in an intoxicated 20 minuteslater defendant's along side of the road, and the vehiclefound abandoned defendant was standing30 feet awayfrom it.

Rayv. State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 816 1991, pet.). no 97 slumped behind Defendantfound hisvehiclewith in behindtruck, engine running, stoppedcrosswise in steeringwheel,foot on brakepedal holdingcar in place while transmission drive = sufficient. Lopez State, v. 1991, pet.). no 805S.W.2d Christi 882(Tex.App.-Corpus 1) 2) 3) officerobserved defendant movefrom driver'sseaf to rear seatuponstoppinghisvehicle; defendant foundin rear seatfeigningsleep; officerhad encountered this defendant previoussfop attempting same ruse. on

Popev. State, 1991, pet.). no 802S.W.2d418(Tex.App.-Austin 1) 2) 3) 4) defendant's truckfound stopped roadway; in enginewas runningand lights were on; truckbelonged defendant; to defendant sittingbehindsteeringwheel.

Bovle State 778S.W.2d113 (Tex.App.-Houston v. no , [14thDist.]1989, pet.). 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) defendant's was stopped traffic; car in defendant not asleep; was defendant had her foot on brakepedal; car was in gear and enginerunning; no other personaroundcar.

Revnolds State v. .2d 1987 ,744 S.W 156(Tex.App.-Amarillo , pet.ref'd). 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) defendant'scar washalfwayin a ditch; defendant wasalone; defendant was behindthe wheel; defendant's wereon the floorboard feet understeeringwheel; driver'sdoor closed; defendant admitted was driving. he

t_58

no Yearyv. State Worth1987, pet.). 766(Tex.App.-Fort ,734 S.W.2d 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) defendant's vehicleinvolvedin two car accident; no one but defendant cab oftruck; in defendant only person vicinityof accident; in windshieldmissingfrom truck and lying on top of defendant; defendant he told witness wantedto get back up & drivetruck.

v. no Bucek State Worth1987, pet.). ,724 S.W.2d 129(Tex.App.-Fort 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) confessed was the driverof vehicle; he defendantpresent sceneof accident; at hiscar wasonly othercar on road; fault; approached victimalmostimmediately disclaiming defendant was only other personpresent; told hisdoctorhe had hit hisheadin mv collision.

Keenan State, v. 1985, pet.). no 700S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo 12 1) 2) 3) 4) defendant observed sittingbehindwheelof car; defendant slumpedover; car sittingpartiallyin main traffic lane; exhaustfumes seencomingfrom car.

no v. Green State,640 S.W.2d 645(Tex.App.-Houston [14thDist.]1982, pet.). 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) single vehicleaccident; wifnessarrivedat sceneof crashas soonas he heardit; urifness founddefendant lyingin front seatnear steeringwheel; positioned side; defendant with hisfeet near steeringwheeland headnear passenger nobodyelsein the car. C. INSUFFICIENTCORROBORATIONOF"DRIVING/OPERATING"

2009). TexasDepartment Public of v. 364(Tex.App.-Austin Safety Allocca, S.W.3d 301 his Courtof Appeals foundunderthe followingfactsthatmotoristwasnot "operating" vehiclewhile in intoxicated, purposes suspension license refusalof test. He wasfoundsleeping the for of of for park, the lightsoff, and the enginerunning(per suspect) car with the front seatreclined,the car in solely for the purpose of air conditioning, while parked in a parking lot behind his place of employment.

159

790 Hanson State, v. Appeal 646 781S.W.2d445(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1990). abated, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). 1) 2) 3) 4) one car accident; defendant foundstanding next to wreckedcar; defendant not appearto be injured; did defendant admittedto the policethat shehad been driving.

pet.ref'd). Reddie State,736S.W.2d v, 1987, 923(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1) defendant foundslumpedover wheelof car; 2) intoxicated; 3) motor running & car in gear. Note: But see Barton cited above. Fordv. State, 571S.W.2d 924(Tex.Crim.App. 1978). 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) officersarrivedat intersectionof public/privateroad; defendant's truckfound 15-20feet off roadway; anothercar and 3 otherpeoplealreadyat scene; no one inside the truck; uponinquirydefendant admittedhe was driver; no otherevidence truckhad traveledon road.

ChamberlainState, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 294 719 1956). Defendantsteering automobite an with engine notrunningas it movedupon a highway being pushedby another "driving operating" suchautomobile automobile sufficient constitute was of to and within statuteprohibitingthe driving or operatingof a motor vehiclewhile under the influence of intoxication liquor. Vernon'sAnn. Art. 802. P.C. D. EVIDENCE INTOXICATION TIMEDEFENDANT WAS DRIVING OF AT 1. IN S U F F IC IE NT

McCaffertv State, v. 748S.W.2d 1988, pet.). no 489(Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist] Where officerarrivedat thesceneof theaccident hourandtwentyminutes and afterit occurred one a wifnesstestifieddefendantdid not appearintoxicated the time of the crash, there was no at gavea breathtest,and extrapolation evidence.Morethantwo hourspassed beforethe defendant the State failedto esfabfshthatthedefendant not drinking thetimeperiodfollowing crash the was in and before the officerarrived = insufficient while driving." evidencedefendantwas "intoxicated Reasonable hypothesis standardwasapplied. NOTE:This is a Pre-Geesa opinion.

160

2.

SUFFICIENT

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2009). Vacated remanded & Schillitaniv. State, 2009WL 3126332 [14th (Tex.Crim.App. 0). 201 WL 2606485 0 201 Ihts is a casewheredefendant drivenhisvehicle theroadandintoa ditch,andofficerSf,rsf had off a contactwithhim wasafterthe accident.Courtheldthat thoughthe evidencesupports findingthe defendantwas intoxicated the accidenfscene upon the officer'sarrival,the lack of evidence at how betweenthe accident concerning recentlythe vehiclewasdrivenand howmuchtimeelapsed and the officer'sarrival, left insufficientevidenceto support thejury's verdict which was ordered reversedand a judgmentof acquittal rendered. (Tex.App.-Dallas 1). Pointer State, v. 2011WL 2163721 201 Thedefendantwas involved a one-car in accidentwith parkedcar and wasfoundto be intoxicated a at the scene. Evidence showedhe wasthe registered ownerof the vehicleand no one elsewas in the vehicle.He admitted havingfour or five drinkstwo hoursbeforethe wreck,and he failedthe sobriefyfesfs. Officerarrivedat the scene twelveminutesafter receivingthe dispatch. Court concluded the evidence that wassufficient link defendant's intoxication hisdriving,and there to to was sufficient corroboration hisstatement to that he was drivingthe vehicle. Scillitani State, v. 2011). 343S.W.3d 914(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14 Thisinvolvedofficercomingupon defendant's vehiclein a ditch off the road. Courtof Appeats originally foundan insufficient in reversed and remanded temporal link. Courtof CriminalAppeals light of Kuciemba. On remand Court of Appealsfound evidencewas sufficientto show that defendant was intoxicated while driving, as required to support conviction for driving while (DWI);defendantwas intoxicated involved singlecaraccidentwhere leftroadandstruckfence in he pole, there wereno skid markson road to indicatethat defendanthad appliedbrake,defendanttold trooperwhoresponded dispatchcall of accidentthat he wasdriver,troopernoticedalcoholon to defendant's breath,defendant duringfieldsobriefyfesfg exhibited numerous cluesof intoxication andpreliminary breathsamplestakenwithintwo hoursshoweddefendant's breathalcohollevelto be .135and.133. pet.filed). Warren State,2011 4036139 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2011, WL [1 Officercomes upon defendant'svehiclein a ditch with defendantstandingoutsidethe vehicle. Challenges sufficiency the evidence say he wasintoxicated the timehe wasdriving. ln the at of to holdingevidencewassufficient, Courtof Appeals focusedon the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) Defendant drove hiscar intoa ditchand wasfoundintoxicated atthe sceneof the accident. Deputytestified to that the hoodof defendant's truckwas stillwarm,indicating him that the truckhad beenrecentlydriven. He alsotestifiedthat the insideof the cab was warmerthan the outsidetemperature 60 of degreesFahrenheit. Deputyfoundan opencontainer alcoholin the cab of the truckand saw that someof the of drinkhadspilled attimeof accident. ontofhepassenger'sseaf which assumed he happened
1-6L

Huqhes State, v. 325S.W.3d257(Tex.App.-Eastland 2010, pet.). no Officer wasdispatched one-car to walking accident encountered and defendant alongside highway. He stoppedand spoketo defendantwho statedhe had gotten vehicle stuckin ditch. Scene evidence corroborated vehiclewaswrecked and inoperable officernotedsignsof intoxication and on thedefendant. /ssueraised wasthateventhoughhe wasintoxicated whenofficermadecontact withhim,therewasno evidence wasintoxicated he earlierwhenaccident occurred.In findingthere was sufficientcircumstantial presentedthat defendantwas intoxicatedwhen he was evidence driving,the Courtheld that proof of the precisetime of accidentis not requiredand that being intoxicatedat the scene of a traffic accidentin which the defendantwas the driver is some circumstantial evidence that the defendant's intoxication causedthe accident, the inference and of causation evenstrongerwhenthe accidentis a one-carcollisionwith an inanimate is object. Kuciemba State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 310 460 2010). Defendant wasfoundbehindthe steeringwheel,injuredand intoxicated, the scene a one-car at of rolloveraccident, witha blood-alcohol levelof morethantwicethelegallimit. TheCourtof Appeals found the evidenceto be insufficient show that appellantwas intoxicated the time that the to at accident occurred therewas no evidence anyonewho saw defendant as of drivingon the road or evidence whenthe accidentoccurred. The Courtof CriminalAppeals of reversedfinding,among otherthings,thatbeingintoxicated the sceneof a trafficaccident whichthe actor wasa driver at in is somecircumstantial evidence theactor'sintoxication that causedthe accident, the inference and of causation even strongerwhen the accidentis a one-car collision is with an inanimateobject. Theyfocusedon the driver'sfailureto brake, hishigh BAC,and the fact that he was stillbleeding as supporting inferencethat the accidentwas recent, and he had been intoxicated quite an for awhile. Stoutner State, S.W.3d v. pdr 36 716(Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2001, refused). [1"1 The defendant tried to arguethat McCaffertvwascontrolling. The Courtdistinguished case fhis fromMcCafferty follows:ln this case,therewerefifteento twentyminutesthat passed as from the time of crashto time officerarrived. Bloodsamplewas takentwentyminutesafter the arrest(fifty minutes after officer's arrival). Extrapolation evidencewas offered. No alcoholicbeverage containerswere noticed near defendant. The testimonythat defendantdid not appear to be intoxicated anotherofficerwho observed to him uponarrivingat the scene wasnot disposifive as the officer was a car length away from the defendantat the time and was not focusedon the defendant. Sfafewasnofrequired exclude to everyotherreasonable hypothesis except defendant's guiltas thatstandard wasdiscarded Geesa.Evidence by foundto be sufficient defendant was that intoxicated whileoperating motorvehicleon June 11, 2008. a

L62

. XXVII. CONDITIONS PROBATIONLIMITATIONS OF A. STAYOUTOF BARS-CHANGEJOB = OK

Lacyv. State, 875S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Tyler 3 1994, pet.). no Requiringdefendantto stay out of bars and tavernsor similar places,preventingdefendant's continuingcurrent employment,held to have a reasonablerelation to crime and defendant's criminality. B. DENIAL PROBATION TO LANGUAGE OF DUE BARRIER-PROPER

Flores State, v. 904S.W.2d129(Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Defendant wasconvicted DWI and sentenced thejudge tojail in largepart because spoke of he by only Spanish, therewereno appropriate and programsforSpanrsh rehabilitation speakers.Decision heldnot to violatedefendant's governmentinterest. rightsas wasrationally relatedto legitimate XXVIII.NO J.N.O.V. CRIMINAL IN CASES Savaqe State, v. 933S.W.2d 497(Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Trialiudgehasno authorityto granta j.n.o.v..in criminalcase. lt can granta motionfor new trial basedon insufficiency the evidence whenit does,Statecan appeal. of but XXIX. COURT APPEALS OF SHOULD NOTRE.WEIGH EVIDENCE Perkins State, S.W.3d v. 19 854(Tex.App.-Waco,April19,2000,pet.denied). Officercameuponcarparkedin themiddleof theroad. Firefightertestified defendant that seemed intoxicated. Therewere beer cansin back seatnotedby one officerand not by anotherofficer. Officer notedstrongodorof alcoholic beverage defendant's on breath,slurredspeech, disoriented, refusedto give sample. Defendant admittedonly one beer and no evidence had more. Court he of Appeals improperly re-weighed evidence, including gooddefendant how lookedon videotape and substituted findings thoseof thejury and reversed. Casewentto Courtof CriminalAppeals its for whichgrantedPDRand pointedout correctstandard 993S.W.2d116 (Tex.Crim.App. in 1999). Uponrehearing, Courtof Appeals foundevidence factuallysufficient and affirmedthe conviction. XXX. MISDEMEANOR APPEAL BONDCONDITIONS Gradv State, v. pet.ref'd). 962S.W.2d128(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997, [1st Courtshaveno authority put conditions misdemeanor to on appealbondsthat are notprovidedfor by statute. ln this case,the conditions that the defendant:1) submit to random tJA; 2) place
1_63

interlockdeviceon vehicle; 3)homeconfinement;4) electronicmonitoringwere upheld. Condition that he attendAA was held to be invalid. for Ex Parte Leverett, 2006, no pet.) (Not designated 2006 WL 279388(Tex.App.-Dallas publication) wereheld to Thefollowing DWI conviction conditions mposed on appealbondaftermisdemeanor be proper: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Commitno offenseagainstthe laws of Texasor any other stateor the UnitedSfafes; Consume alcoholic no beverages; Report person thepretrialrelease "superuising officer') in to supervising officer(hereinafter of the Grayson Department, beginning on CountyCommunity Supervision Corrections and per monththereafter; the date of thisorder,and one time Pay a monthlysuperuisory in the amountof $20.00to the GraysonCountyCommunity fee Supervision Corrections and Department; RemainwithinGraysonCounty,Texas,unlessexpresspermission leave saidcountyis to grantedby the supervisingofficer or by the Court; Submita specimen breathor bloodas directed officer of fromtimeto timeby thesupervising for the detectionof alcoholin the defendant's body and pay any and allfees associafed therewith; Operateno motorvehiclewith any detectable body; amountof alcoholin the defendant's in Submita specimen breathor bloodfor analysisto the of determine alcoholconcentration peaceofficeras authorized law; the defendant's by body uponthe requestof any Haveinstalled themotorvehicle regularly on ownedby the defendant, on thevehiclemost or operated the defendant, ignition by by an interlock device,approved the lexas Department the of PublicSafety, mechanism makeimpractical to fhaf usesa deeplungbreath analysis operation a motorvehicleif ethylalcoholis detected the breathof the operator. Such of in within30 deviceshallbe installed the appropriate expense, vehicle,at the defendant's on days from the date of this order; Provideproof of installationof such ignitioninterlockdeviceto the supervisingofficeron or beforethe 3dh day after the date of thisorder;and Operateno motorvehiclethat is not equipped withan ignitioninterlockdevice.

10) 11)

XXXI. INTERLOCK DEVICES A. AS A PRE.TRIAL BONDCONDITION

pet.ref'd). Ex ParteElliot, S.W.2d714 (Tex.App.-Fort 950 Worth1997, Courtheld that 17.441is not unconstitutional, that thejudge did not abuse hisdiscretion in and orderingan interlockdeviceas a condition bondin this case. of

1-54

B.

AS A CONDITION PROBATION OF

Statev. Lucero, S.W.2d 979 400(Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet.). no A trial couft may waive(as a condition probation)the installation a deeplung deviceunder of of Article42.1 Section13 (i), uponmakinga findingthat to do so wouldnot be in the "best interest 2, ofjustice." C. AS PROOF PROBATION OF VIOLATION

Kavlor State, S.W.3d v. 9 205(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet.). no probationcondition he notconsume tn thiscase,the Stateproved defendant viotatedthe a had that gathered alcoholby callinga system froman interlock readings administrator company interpret to frominterlock deviceinstalled suspecf car. Thewifnesswasableto distinguish fhosereadings on 3 causedby othersubsfances from thosecausedby alcoholic beverages.Theproof washeldto be present sufficient eventhoughthe Statewasunableto wasthe person evidence the defendant that whoactuallyblew into the device. XXXII.JUDGEMAYCHANGE JURYSENTENCE JAIL TIMETO PROBATION OF lvevv. State,277 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 43 2009). Thiswasa DWI trialwherethe defendant failedto wentto thejury for punishment deliberately and file a sworn motionwith the jury declaringthat he had never beforebeen convictedof a felony offensein thisor any other state,thusrendering The for himselfineligible ajury recommendation. jail. After conferring punishment $2000fine and thirty-five assessed hrs informally at daysin Tury with the jury off the record, the judge announcedshe would suspend the impositionof the placethe defendant community appellant's sentence, for supervision a periodof twoyears,and on suspendall but $500 of the fine. The trial judge also imposeda thirty day jail term and a require;ment that the appellantcomplete60 hours of communityseruiceas conditionsof the communitysuperuision. Theissueon appealwaswhetheratrialcourtcansuspendalury-assessed punishmentand ordercommunitysuperuision when thejury itselfcoutdnot have recommended community superuision. TheCourtof Criminal Appeals heldit wasnot errorfor the trialcourtin this case fo place the appellant on communitysupervisioneven though the jury assessedhis punishment and did not recommendit. lt was withinthe discretion the trial courtunderArticle of 42.12, Secfion3, to do sq so long as the appellantmet the criteriafor community superuision spelled there. out

165

TABLE AUTHORITIES OF
Abbrinq State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 882 914 Worth1994, pet.) no Abernathv State, v. 963S.W.2d 822(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998,pet.refd) . Adams State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 67 450 Worth2002,pet.refd.) Adams State, S.W.2d250, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 808 1991, pet.) . . no [1"t Adams State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 969 106 1998, pet.) . no . .... . . 130 . . . 52 . . 116 . . . 99,110 . . . . . . 45 . . . 132 ......... 2

Addinqton State, (Tex.App.-Texarkana, refd) pet. v. 730S.W.2d 788,789-90 on D A q u i r rv . S t a t e9 2 8 S . W , 2 d 5 9 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s[t1 4 t h i s t . 1 9 9 6 n o p e t . ]. e , 7 , ] Aquirre State, v. 948 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997,pet.ref'd] . [14th A k i n s v . S t a t e , 2 0 0 7 W L 7 3 7 8 e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t 2 0 0s qn p e t . ). . (T hDi 7, o 184 Alamiv. State, 333S.W.3d 881(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2011,reh.overruled) . . A l b e r t v . t a t e , 6 5 9 S . W . 2 d T 1 x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [D 4s t ] 1 9 8 p e t . e f d ) . S (4e 1 i th 3, r Alexander State, v. pet.refd) . 949S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 772 1997, Alford State, S.W.3d v. 22 669(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000,pet.refd) A l i fv . S t a t e , 6 2 7 S . W . 2 d ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . ) f 166 1982 Aliffv. State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-El 955 891 Paso1997, pet.). . no Allen State,849 v. pet. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston 838 1993, refd) . [1"tDist] Anderson State,110 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 98 2003,reh.overruled) . . . .

... 44,67 ....... 41

. . 143 ........ 11

. . . . . . . . 49 54,55 ....... 92

. . 114,115 . . . . 46 . . . . . . . 138

#**:i::?!?.(:::.ii:-::.-*lil1lll:r::]:T::""oji:]:::::1i.::'::Tl'::l'"l}
Anderson State, v. (Tex.App.-Austin 2010WL 3370054 2010) Anderson State, v. 341S.W.3d 585(Tex.App.-Amarillo , pet.filed) . 2011 Anderson State, v. 866S.W.2d 685(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1993,pet.refd) . [1st Andrews State, 79 S.W.3d (Tex. v. App.- Waco2002,pdrrefd) 649 Annis State, S.W.2d v. 578 406 (Tex.Crim.App. . 1979) A r m e n d a r i z v . S t a t e , 1 2 3 S . W .( T e x . 1 r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) 3d40 C Armstronq State,2012WL864778 v. (Tex.App.-Dallas2012) l 99 , A r n o l v . S t a t e , 9 7 S . W . 2 d 8 8( T e x . A p p . - D a l1a s 8 n o p e t . ) . d 1 5 . Article14.03(qx1) t n , A t k i n s vS t a t e , 9 9 S . W . 2 d 6 3 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s1 i9 9 9 p e t .r e f ' d ) . O 7 . . . . . 33 ........ 4 . . . . . 56 . . . . 18 . . . . 78 ....... 20

. . . 110 ........ 38

... 19 ...... 118

Atkinson State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 871 252 1996) 117,119 Worth1994, rev'd, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 923 21

L66

for (Tex.App.-Tyler2011 pet.refd) (Notdesignated publication) Avlorv. State ,2011WL 1659887 , Bachickv. 2000, State,30 S.W.3d 549(Tex.App.-FortWorth pet.refd) v. Badqett State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 42 136 2001).

. . . . 105 ........ 20

. . . . 90

. (Tex.App.-Fort for Baqbv State, v. 2007WL 704931 Worth2007,no pet.)(notdesignated publication) . . . . . . 148 Baqqettv. 1693858(Tex.App.-Texarkana . 2012) State,2012WL Baqheri State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2003) v. 119 755 Bakerv. 177 no State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston 113 [1"tDist.]2005,pet.). . Bakerv. State,519 437 1975) S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. pet. Bakerv. State,879 1994, refd) . S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist] 218 [14th Barfield State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 446 2001) 63 ...... 122

. . . . 86 ... 48 .... ....... 129 47

. . . . 132

Barrazav. State, 733 S.W. 2d 379 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, 1987, pet. granted)aff'd 790 S.W. 2d 654 ...40,62 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . J u n e 2 0 ,) 1990 B a r r o n S.t a t e , 3 5 3 S . W8 3 d ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0.1 1 ) v .79 .. Bartlett State, v. 270S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 147 2008) Barton State, v. 948S.W.2d 364(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, pet.) no Bassv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana 64 2001,pet.refd) . 646 Bassv.State,723s.W.2d687(Tex.Crim.App.1986) v B a t t l e , S t a t e9 8 9 S . W . 2 d 4 0 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n a 9 , o p e t . ) , 199 n 8 ...... 118

. . . 124 64,157 . . . . 24 ......77 ...... 141

permanently opinion 304(TCA-2003), Beard State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Eastland v. in 5 883 1999), abated 108S.W.3 (TA-Eastland, (unpublished). abated to due withdrawn 2003WL 21398347 in June18,2003) /Casewaspermanently death. Thebodyof opinioncan be foundat httpt/www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/028200.htm1 . . 82,84 pet. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2000, refd) . Bearden State,2000 19638 v. WL [1st pet. Beaslev State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 810 Worth1991, refd) 838 Beck State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston v. no 651 827 1983, pet.). . [1"tDist.] Beeman State, S.W.3d v. 86 613,(Tex.Crim.App. 2002). ..... 113

. . 115,125 . . . . 98 . . 101

(Tex.App.-Fort for Bellv. State, 2005WL 503647 op., Worth2005, pet.refd)(mem. notdesignated publication) 125 B e l l v . S t a t e , 2S . W . 3 d 7 0 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . , 2 0 0 6 ) 01 pet. Bellv.State,881 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 794 1994, refd) . [14th (Tex.App.-FortWorth,2004,pet. . Benedictv. State,2004WL2108837, refd) Bennett State,723 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort Worth1987, pet.) no 359 (Tex.App.-FortWorth no pet.). . Berqnerv. State,2008W1 4779592 2008, B h a k t a v . S t a 1e ,4 S . W . 3 d 7 3 8 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s tio n.[]1 2 0 0 3 , p d r r e . d ) t2 D st , f ..... 135

. . . 93 .. 155 . . . 92 ..... ........ 76 88

1-61

B i c e vS t a t e1 7 S . W . 33 5 4 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s1o t D i s t . ] 2 0 r e ho v e n u l e d ) . , d [ t "n 00, Biederman State,724 v. pet.refd) . . S.W.2d 436(Tex.App.-Eastland 1987, Biqon State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2008) v. 252 360 Biomson State,1996 627374 v. (Tex.App.-Austin WL 1996, pet.)(Notdesignated publication) no for

........

22

. . . . 139 . . 99,144 . . . 112

Blackwell State, v. (Tex.App.-Austin 2005WL 548245, 2005,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). . . . . 94,98 for . Blessinq State,927 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-El 266 Paso1996, pet.). . no . . 128

Block State,1997WL 530767 v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997,pet.refd) (Notdesignated publication) 72 for . [14h Blok State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 986 pet. 389 1999, refd) . [1st BlumenstetterState,135S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana v. 234 2004,no pet.) . B l u n t v . S t a t e , 7 2 4 s . W . 2 d 7 9 ( T e x . C r9m7A p p . 1i8.) B o e s vS t a t e , 2 0 0 4 W 1 8 5 2 4 4 e x . A p p . - A u s t i n 2 0 0 4 ) . (T 16 ..... . . 119 . . . 92 ....... ...... ..... ....... 96 121 32 118

Bohren State,2011WL3274039 v. (Tex.App.-ElPaso (Notdesignatedpublication) . . for .. 2011) B o o h e r. S t a t e6 6 8 S . W . 2 d 8 2 ( T e x . A p p , - H o u s t[os t D i s t ]1 9 8 4 , e t .r e f ' d ] . v , p 8 ln B o o k m a n v . S t a t e , 2 0 0 8 W1 2 7 1 3 e x . A p p . - W a c o , 2 0 e h o v e r r u l e d ) . . . . (T , 31 L r 08. Bossv. State, 778S.W.2d 594(Tex.App.-Austin 1989, pet.) . . no Bower State, S.W.3d v. 77 514(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2002,petrefd) . . [1"t

..... 73 . . . . . . . 81 . . 140 158 119

Bovlev.State,778S.W.2d113(Tex.App.-Houston[14thDist.]1989,nopet.).. ....... Bradfordv. State,230S.W.3d pet.).. 719(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2007,no [14th Broadnaxv. State,995 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin 900 1999, pet.) . no Brotherv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2005), denied,546 1150 166 (2006) 255 cert. U.S. Brown State,716S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 939 1986).[reversed othergrounds]. . on Brown State, v. 290S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort pdr 247 Worth2009,reh.denied, refd) B r v a n t v . S t a 1e ,7 S . W . 3 d 3 9 7 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) t8 Bucek State,724 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 129 Worth1987, pet.) no Burhalterv. State,642S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 231 1982) .....

. . . . 91 .. 11,20 . . . 130 . . . . 113 .... 135 . . . . . 151,159 ... 92

Burke State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 6 312 Worth1999) vacated remanded 28 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. and by 545 2000)opinionwithdrawn andsubstituteopinion submitted S.W.3d (Tex.App.-FortWorth ........ 2002) 149 80 82 B u r k e vS t a t e , 9 3 O . W . 2 d 3 0 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t[o n t hD i s t . 1 9 9 6 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) . S 2 ] . 14 Burkett State,179S.W.3d18 (Tex.App. Antonio v. San 2005,reh.overruled) ...... 2,41

. . . . 123

B u r k h a r t v . S t a t e , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 1 9 9 9 8 9 6 ( T e x . A p p .0 0 3nl oa se t . ) ( N o t d e s i g n a t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n )5 6. . . . . 2 - D a, l p , .. Burns State, v. 807S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus pet.refd) 878 Christi 1991, . . . 93,97

168

-Fort Worth,2010) . Campbell State, v. 325S.W.3d 222(Tex.App. C a n a s c o v . S t a t e , 7 1 2 s . W 22 d T e x . C r i m . A p p . ) 1. 0( 1986 Carroll State, S.W.3d v. 51 797(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2001,pet.refd) . [1't ...;..

. . . . . . 55 ... 36 . . 136

Carteqena State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2006WL 278404 2006,pet.refd) (Notdesignated publication) for [14th 153 Castillo State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1995) v. 913 529 Castilfo State, v. 939S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Disq1997pet.refd) . 754 [14th ..... 3 . . . 49,127

Castor State, 1 WL 5999602 v. (Tex.App.-Corpus 201 2011,no pet.)(Not for . Christi designated publication) . . . 87 us C a v a z o s S t a t e9 6 9 S . W . 2 d 5 4 ( T e x . A p p . - C o r pC h r i s t1 9 9 8 , o p e t . ) . v. , 4 n . i Chaloupka State, S.W.3d172(Tex.App.-Texarkana, 18,2000,petrefd) . v. 20 April ChamberlainState,294 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 719 1956) ...... 94

. . . 155 . . . . . 160

Chauncev State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-El v. 837 179 Paso1992), d.,877S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. . . . 119 1994) aff 305 Chilman State, S.W.3d (Tex. v. 22 50 App.-Houston [14thDist]2000,pet.refd.) on C h u n v . S t a t e9 2 3S . W . 2 d 2 8 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s[t1 s tD i s t .1 9 9 6 p e t . r e f ' d.]. n , 7 , . ] Churchv.State,942S.W.2d139(Tex.App.-Houston[1stDist.]1997,pet.refd). 17,36,38 ..,..... ...... 2 147

Claiborne State, v. (Tex.App.-Fort 2005WL 2100458 Worth, for . 2005,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). . 154 Clarkv. State,728S.W.2d484 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth,vacated and remanded othergrounds,753 on S.W.2d371 ( T e x . C r i m . A1 9 8 7 ) ,n r e m a n7 8 1S . W . 2 d 9 5 4 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W9 8t9 , n o p e t . ) pp. o d 1 or h ........ 39 C l a r k v . S t a t e , 9 3 3 S . W . 2 d 3 3 2 ( T e x . A p p . - C o r p u s9 6h r ip eit . ) 19 Cno st , Clavv. State (Tex.App.-Waco 2012) ,2012WL 955323 C o l e . S t a t e6 1 1 S . W . 2 d 9 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 ). v , 7 198 Coflinsv.State,829S.W.2d894(Tex.App.-Dallas1992,nopet.) . ........ 95

. . 104 .. 131 ...... 22

Combest State, v. 953 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997). On remand981 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.App.-Austin lgg8).Sameholdins .......92 C o m p t o n v . S t a1 e , S . W . 3 d 3 7 5 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 " t D i s t . ] 2 0 0 3 , p e t . r e f d ) . t20 Cookv. State, 2006WL 1633250 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) for Cookv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 63 924 2002,pet.refd) . [14th Cooper State, v. 961S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.l1997, refd) . 229 pet 1"t Corbin State,85 v. S.W.3d 272,(Tex.Crim.App. . 2002) ...... 59

. . . . . . 65 . . . 23 . . . . . . . . 37 . . . . 18

Corpus State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 931 pet. 30 1996), dism'd, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) . . . 95 962 590 Crenshawv. State,2011WL3211258 (Tex.App.-FortWorth granted) 2011,pdr C r i d e r v . t a t e , 3 5S . W . 3 7 0 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2.0 1 . ) S 2 d ..1 ....... ...... 127 102

L69

C r i t t e n d o n vt.a t e , 8 9 9 S . W . 2 d 6 6 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) S Crockerv. State,260S.W.3d no pet.).. 589(Tex.App.-Tyler2008,

........ .....

21 MA

(Tex.App.-San for Cunninqham State, v. 2004WL 2803220 Antonio, 2004,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) 27 CunninqhamState, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Beaumont no pet.) . v. 966 1998, 811 Curlv. State,1994 33757096 WL no Christi 1999, pet.) . fl-ex.App.-Corpus (Tex.App.-Corpus Curtin State, v. 2006WL 347025 2006,no pet.) . . Christi . . . . 17 . . . . . 75 . . . . 114

Curtis State, S.W.3d v. 209 v. No. 2006, Reversed: Curtis State, PD-1820-06, 688,(Tex.App.-Texarkana, pdrgranted). 2007WL 317541(Tex.Crim.App.2007). 2008 v. Conviction affirmed Curtis State.No.06-05-00125-CR, WL 707285 (Tex.App.-Texarkana,2008). .....23 i9 D a r i c e k v . t a t e , 8 7 5 . W . 2 d 7 O( T e x . A p p . - A u s t1 n 9 4 ,p e t .r e f ' d ). S S 7 Davidson State, v. (Tex.App.-Dallas (Notdesignated publication) 2010WL 118776 for 2010, pet.) no ...... 82

. . . 51

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] (Notdesignated publication) 3 Davis State, v. for . 2006WL 2194708, 2006,no pet.). [14tn Davis State, v. 949S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 28 Antonio 1997, pet.) no Davis State, v. 964S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 352 Worth1998, pet.) no D a w v .S t a t e , 6 7 S . W .3 8 2( T e x . A p p . - W a c o , 2 0 0 1 ,e t . ) . 3d n op . Dawkins State, v. 822S.W.2d 668,671(Tex.App.-Waco, 1991 pet.refd) . , . . . . 116 . . . . 121 ....... 122

. . 40,62

H'@:

1ll il lil Tll l* iii-'"*::: "':: ill lll l* il lll l"l ":' ^illl%? 11:,lliil
. . 109 . . . . 49 . . . . 157 . . . 27 ...... 1 3 ,1 5

Delanev. State,2012WL340234 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.] 2012) . Deleonv. State,2006 WL 1063765(Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.) (Not designatedfor publication) Dentonv. State,911 S.W.2d388 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) Deramusv. State,2011 WL 582667(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011) (Not designatedfor publication) . . . D e r i c h s w e i l e r vt.a t e , 3 4 8 S . W . 3 d 9 0 6 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 1 ) , s . c t . c e r tOd e.n i ,e d , 1 1 . S . ct 3 20 .

Desilets State,2010 WL 3910588(Tex.App.-Beaumont v. for . 2010,no pet.)(Not designated publication) . 98,122 Dickerson . State,965 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.App.-Houston1st Dist] Feb. 19, 1998],986 S.W.2d 618 v [ (Tex.Crim.App.1999) ......96 Doqavv. State,101 S.W.3d614 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2003, no pet.). . [1"1 Doneburs State,44 S.W.3d651 (Tex.App.-FortWorth2001,pdr refd.) v. Dornbuschv. State,262 S.W.3d 432 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) Dorschev. State,514 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974) . . . 20 . . . . . . 136 . . . . . . 153 . . . 79

pet. Dotvv.State,2005WL1240697 ex.App.-Austin (f Notdesignatedforpublicaiton), dism'd, May26,2005)(mem.op., granted,No. PD-1159-05, improvidently 2007 WL 841112(Tex.Crim.App.2007)(Not designatedfor publication) . . 92, 143

L70

pet.).. Douthittv. State, 127S.W.3d 2004,no 327(Tex.App.-Austin pet.refd.) . Dowlerv. State,44 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, 666 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.], Dovle State, v. 2008WL 597450 2008pdrrefd) . [1 Drapkin State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Texarkana pet.refd) . v. 781 710 1989,

.....

79

. . . . . 15 . . 124 . . . 67,117

2006) Drichas State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2005) v. 175 187 161 795 on remand S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana pdr granted,judgmentvacated by 210 S.W.3d 644 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) on remand to 219 S.W.3d 471 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n a 2 0 0 T p e t. r e f d ) ...121 pet. Dumas State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 812 1991, refd) . 611 Dunkelberq State, v. 276S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 503 Worth, 2008,pet.refd) . D u r h a n v . S t a t e , 7 1 0 S . W72 d T e x . A p p . - B e a u m o n t n o p e t . . . 1 . 6( 1986, ) D u r r e t t v . S t a t e , 3 6 S . W . 3 d 2 0 5 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n (0 1 , tn o pie t . ) . . 20 14 hD s Dvarv. State,125 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App., 24,2003). 460 April (Tex.App.-El Dvev. State, for . 2003WL 361289 Paso2003,no pet.)(Not designated publication). . . Ehrhartv. State,9 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Beaumont2000,reh. 929 ovenuled) Elliotv. State,908S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin pet. 590 1995, refd) . E||isv.State,86S.W.3d759(Tex'App.-Waco2002,pet.refd). E l l i s v . S t a t e , 9 9 S . W . 3 d 7 8 3 ( T e x . A p p . - H o uis tto]n [0 0 3 , p e t r e f d . . D s . 21 Emerson State,880 v. 759 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) Emiqh State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist] v. 916 71 1996, pet.). . no [1st ...... 13 . . 39,48 . . . 23 ........ ........ 43 98

. . . . . 37 . . 101 ....... ...... 25 38

. . . 56 . . . 127

1997) Enqlund State, v. 907S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1995) 946 64 937 affirmed S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. [1st 131 pet. (October4, Enriquez State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Corpus v. 2001,) refd) reh 56 596 Christi, August 2001) overruled 9,
107

Erdman State,861 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 890 1993) Erickson State,13 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 850 2000,pet.refd) . Evans State, v. (Tex.App.Houston Dist.] 2006WL 1594000 2006,pdrrefd) [14th pet. Evans State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-El v. 690 112 Paso1985, refd) . Ewerokehv.State,835S.W.2d796(Tex.App.-Austin1992,pet.refd) . Ex Parte Anthonv, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas, 931 664 1996pet.refd) . Ex Parte Crenshaw, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 25 761 2000,pet.refd) . [1"t Ex ParteDunlap, S.W.2d 963 Worth1998, pet.) no 954(Tex.App.-Fort ExParteEfizabethAvers,92l 1996, S.W.2d438(Tex.App.-Houston[lstDist]nopet.) . Ex ParteElliot, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort pet.refd) 950 714 Worth1997,

. . . . 76 . . . 126 . . . 46 . . . 111 ........ 75

. . 145 . . . . 149 . . 146 ...... 146

. . 164

L7L

pet. ExParteJamail,904S.W.2d 1995, refd) . 862(Tex.App.-Houston [lstDist] (Tex.App.-Dallas for Ex ParteLeverett, 2006WL 279388 2006,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) Ex Parte McFall, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 939 799 Worth1997, pet.) no pet.refd) . Ex PartePee,926S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1996, 615 [1st Ex ParteRichards,968 1998,pet.refd) S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 567 Christi E x P a r t R o e m e r , 2 1 5 S . W8 3 d ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . , 2 0 0 7 ) e . 87 Ex Parte Ross, S.W 214(Tex.Crim.App. 522 .2d 1975) pet. Ex Parte Serna, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 957 598 Worth1997, refd) Tex E x P a r t e S e n a t o , 3 S . W . 3(d 4 1 . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 )

.......

4'l

. . 164 . . 147 . . 146 . . 146 ....... 144

...... 1 . . 146 ...... 141

petition (Mar18,2004), Ex Parte rehearing overruled Shoe,137S.W.3d (Tex.App.-FortWorth 100 January 15,2004), (Oct granted (Nov10,2004), petition discretionary for discretionary review for review dismissed 10,2007) . . . . . 142 Ex ParteTavlor, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2002) 101 434 Ex Parte Tharp, 935S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 157 1996) E x P a r t e V a s q u e z , 9 l 8 S . W32 T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t 9 6p e t r e f d ) . . 7 . (d 19 h , . . . . 150 . . . 145 ..... 145

(Tex.App.-Fort ... Ex Parte Walters, for 2006WL 1281076 Worth2006)(notdesignated publication)(pet.refd.) 148 Ex Parte Warren, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 353 490 2011) . . . . ExParteWeaver,880 1994, S.W.2d 855(Tex.App.-FortWorth no pet.) pet. Ex Parte Williamson,924 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 414 Antonio 1996, refd) . 0' , F a r h a r t S.t a t e , 3 3 7 S . W . 3 d ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t h 2p dlrl r e f d ) v 302 . . . : . . . . . . 130 ....... 145

. . . . . . . 145 ....... 106

Farmer State,2011 v. (Tex.App.-Fort 2011WL 4072126 WL 1601311 and Worth2011). Reversed remanded (Tex.Crim.App.2011) designated publication) (Not . . . . 115 for (Tex.App.-Fort Farmer State,2006 3844169 v. . WL WorthDec28,2006,pet.refd) . . . Ferquson State,2 v. S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin 718 1999, pet.) . no F e r q u s o n vt.a t e , 5 7 3 S . W . 2 d 5 1 6 ( T e x . C r i 9 7. 8 )p p . S 1m A Fernandezv. State,306 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-FortWorth no pet.) 354 2010, Fernandez State, v. 915S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 572 Antonio 1996,no pet.). . F i e r r o v . S t a t e , 9 6 9 S . W . 2T e x . A p p . - A u s t 9n 8 , n o p e t . . . ( d51 1i 9 ) Findlav State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. I 397 1999, pet. no [14th F i n l e v vS t a t e ,8 0 9 S . W . 2 d 0 9 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t[o n t hD i s t . 1 9 9 1 ,p e t .r e f ' d ). . 9 ] 14 Fischer State, v. 252S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2008) 375 Flecherv. State,298 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 1957) 581 pp. . F l o r ev . S t a t e9 0 4 S . W . 2 d 2 9( T e x . C r i m . A1 9 9 5 ) s , 1 . . 153 . . . . . 126 ........ ....... 11 22

. . . . 36 ..... 4,41 . . . . 149 .... 56,77 . . . . 46 . . . . 36 .... i....... 163

L]2

Florida J.1., v. 254 529U.S.266,120 S.Ct.1375, L.Ed.2d (2000) 146 v. Flowers State, 220S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2007) 919 p F o q l e . S t a t e , 9 8 8 . W , 2 d 9 1 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r to r t h1 9 9 9 , e t .r e f ' d ). v W S 8 Folev State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.fCorpus v. 2010) 327 907 Christi-Edinburg Tex. F o l k v . S t a t e , 7 9 7 S . W . 2(d 1 4 1 A p p . - A u s t i n 1 9 9 0 , p e t . r e f d ) . Ford State,571 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 924 1978) F o r d vS t a t e , 1 5 8 s . W . 3 d 4 8 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) . F o r t e vS t a t e , 7 0 7 S . W . 2 d 8 9 ( T e x . C r i m9 A6 ) . . 1 .8 pp Fortev.State,759S.W.2d Tex.Crim.App. ) 128( 1988

. . . . . 11 . . . 130 .... 65 . . . . . 104 ...... 151

. . . . . 160 ....... ....... ...... 29 84 68

309 Foster State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin v. Rev'dby CCA326S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 297 2009,pet.granted). 386 ......35 2 0 1 0 ). Foster State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 326 2010) 609 . . . . . 15

. (Tex.App.-San for Fowfer State. v. 2007WL 2315971 Antonio 2007 pet.refd) (notdesignated publication) . . . 36 , p h . ef 8 F o w l e r v . t a t e , 2 6 6 S . W . 3 d 4 9 8 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r te t2 0 0d ), r S pet.). . Fowlerv. State,65 116 2001,no S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Amarillo ........ ..... 24 64

granted,930 pef. S.W.2d [ex.Cdm.App. 607 Foxv.State,900 1995), dism'd, improv. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-FortWorth 345 ...... 15 1 e e 6 l.) Francov.State,82S.W.3d425(Tex.App.-Austin refd) . 2002,pet. Franksv.State,24l S.W.3d 135(Tex.App.-Austin2007,pet. . refd) Freeman State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 69 2002,no pet.). . 374 pet.refd) (Tex.App.-Dallas Freeman State, v. 733S.W.2d 662,663-64 1987, ...... ..... 75 18

. . . . 155 . . . 132

for (Tex.App.-Fort designated publication) Frohv. State, 2006WL 1281086 no Worth, 2006. May 11,2006, pet.)(Not 51 (Tex.App.-Dallas Frvev. State, 2004WL 292660 for 2004,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) Fuentesv.State,880S.W.2d857(Tex.App.-Amarillo1994,pet.ref'd) pet.refd) . FulenwiderState, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-HoustonDist.] v. 176 290 2004, [1 . . . . . . 150 ....145 88,119

. (Tex.App.-Corpus for Gabrish State, v. 2009WL 2605899 Christi 2009,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). . 12 Gaddis State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 753 396 1988) 78,127

. .n G a l l a r d oS . a t e , 2 0 1 0 W L 9 9 0 ' 1 1 ( T e x . A p p . - A m a r nl oo 2 0 . )0 N o t d e s i g n a t e d f o r p u b l i.c. a.t.i.o . ) 1 3 8 vt i l pet1 ( , n st ] . 9 G a l l e q o sS . a t e , 7 7 6 S . W . 2 d 3 1 2 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i o p.e't1 ). .8 9 , vt Gallemore State, v. 312S.W.3d 56 (Tex.App.-Fort 1 Worth201 0) G a l l o w a v v . S t a t e , 7 7 8 S . 1 1.1 (d e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t . ] 1 9 8 9 , n o p e t . ) . . W 2 T ...... 97

. . . . . . . 150 ..... 53

1,1 3

Gallups State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.200a) v. 151 196 G a m b o a v .t a t e , 7 7 4 S . W . 2 d ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W1 9t8 9p e t . e f d ) S 111 or h , r

. 36,37 ....... 42

Gamez State, v. (Tex.App.*San 2003WL 145554 Antonio, for . 2003,no pet)(Notdesignated publication) . . . . . 90 Ganskvv. petrefd) State, S.W.3d 180 240(Tex. App.-FortWorth 2005, v. Garcia State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]August 112 839 7,2003, pet.) no [14th v. Garcia State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-El 874 pet. 688 Paso1993, refd) . Garcia State, S.W.3d v. 95 522(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2002, pet.) . no [1"t ...... ........ ....... 14 84

. . . 116 . . . . 96

Garner State,779S.W.2d v. pet.refd percuriam, S.W.2d158(Tex.Crim.App. 498 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth1989) 785 1 9 9 0 ). ......68 Garreft State, v. 851S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1993) 853 Gazav.State,794S.W.2d 530(Tex.App.-CorpusChristi1990, reh. ..... overruled) G a s s a w a y S t a t e9 5 7 S . W . 2 d 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 7 ) . v. , 4 199 ... 46 .... 41

v. Gattis State, 2004WL 2358455 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] for . 2004)(not designated publication). . . . . 90-92 [14th Geesa State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 820 154 1991) Gentile State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 848 359 1993, pet.) . no Getts State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2005) v. 155 153 Gibson State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 952 569 Worth1997, pet.) no Gibson State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 995 693 1999) . . . . 156 . . . . . 130 . . . . . 140 . . . 130 . . . 133

Giffordv. State,793 S.W.2d48 (Tex.App.-Dallas granted,810 S.W.2d225 1990),pet. dism'd,improvidently ( T e x . C r i m . A p p .1 ) 199 ......116 GiqliobiancoState, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App v. 210 637 2006) G l a u s e r v .t a t e , 6S . W . 3 3 0 7( T e x . A p p . - H o u s[t1 "n D i s t ] 2 0 0 0 ,r r e f d ) . ot S 6 pd d v. Glover State, pet.refd) 870S.W.2d198(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1994, Gomez State, S.W.3d v. 35 746(Tex.App.-Houston 2000,petrefd) . [1"tDist.] Gonzales State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 309 48 2010) G o n z a f e s v . S t a t e , 3 4 2 S .1 5.1 T e x . A p p . . - E a s t l2 0 1 1 ). W 3d ( and G o n z a l e s v . S t a t e ,S . W . 2 d 6 9 0 ( T e x . C r i m1A p p . 5Sl . 979) G o n z a l e z v . S t a t e , 9 6 7 S . W . 2 d 4 5 7 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r9W,o rp e t . ) 1 9 t 8n o t h Goodman State, v. 302S.W,3d 462(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2010,pdrrefd) . G o r d o n v . S t a 1e ,1 . W . 3 d 8 8 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n an o p e t,. ). t6 S 1 2005 G o w a n s v . S t a t e , 9 9 5 S . W8 2 dT e x . A p p . - H o u s1o t D i s t . 9 9 9p e t . e f d ) . 7 . 7( 1] , r [ t "n Gradyv.State,962S.W.2d128(Tex.App.-Houston[1stDist.]1997,pet.refd) . . . . . . . 84 ......... 4

. . . 13 . . 128 . . 137 ........ ........ ........ 16 54 71

. . . . . 99 ....... ...... ....... 134 156 163

L74

v. Graham State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 710 1986) 588

. . . 65

v. Granberrv State,745 S.W.2d34 (Tex.App.-Houston [14thDist.]1987)pet. refd, per curiam,758 S.W.2d284 (Tex.Crim.App. ) .......42 1988 Gravv.State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2006) 152 125 G r a v v S t a t e , 9 8 S . W . 2 8 1 4 ( T e x . A p p . - B e a u m o n t9 n o p e t . ) . 6 d 199 . v. Green State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 640 1982, pet.) . . no 645 [14th . . . . . 118 ........ 39

. . . . . . 159 77

1986) Gressettv. State,669S.W.2d 695(Tex.Crim.App. ....... 748(Tex.App.-Dallas affd,7235.W.2d 1983), G r i f f i t h S t a t e , 5 5 S . W .5 9 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . . . . . v. 3d v. Grissett State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 571 1978) 922 G u l l a f t v .t a t e , 7 4 S . W . 3 d 8 8 0 ( T e x . A p p . -2 0 a c on p e t . ). . S W02, o

.... 39,41 . . . 116 ....... 56

(Tex.App.-Fort Hackett State, v. for 2003WL 21810964 Worth, 2003,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) 45, 56 Hailev State, S.W.3d 18 (Tex.Crim.App. v. 87 1 2002)cert.denied,s38 U.S.1060(2003) Ha|brookv'State'31s.W.3d301(Tex.App._FortWorth2000,pet.refd.) H a l l vS t a t e , 2 9 7 S . W . 3 d 2 9 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) . . H a l l v . S t a t e , 6 1 9 S . W .5 6 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . ) 1 2d 1980 Hallv.State,649S.W.2d627(Tex.Cri83) pp. 19m.A Hammettv. State,713 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 102 1986) ...... ...... ....... 27 132 76 . . . . . . . 100

. . . 50

H*1i"*::ii:1l:1T::-::i1:i:.ii11,.T:::|::::1Tl:*i1l1.1n*.l|
Hardie State,588 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 936 1979) Hardie State,807 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. pet.refd) 1991, 319 ...... 1 . . . . . . 39,40 Hardv State, v. (Tex.App.-Corpus . 2005WL 1845732 for designated publication). . . . 74 Christi, Aug.4, 2005)(Not H a r k e v v . t a t e , 7 8 5 S . W . 2 d 8 7 6 ( T e x . A p p . -1 9u s0n n p e t . ). S A 9 t, o i Harrefl State,725 .2d208(Tex.Crim.App. v. S.W 1986) Hanis State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston v. 713 773 1986, pet.). . no [1"tDist.] Hanison State,205 v. S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2006) 549 H a n i s o n v . S t a t e , 7 6 6 S . W . 2 d 6 0 0 ( T e x . A p p . - F1 9 t8 9p e t . e f d ) or W, r r o h on ) H a r r i s o n S t a t e , 7 8 S . W . 2 d 9 2 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s[t1 s tD i s t .1 9 9 0 n o p e t . . . v. 8 3 ] , H a r t m a n v . S t a t e , 2 S . W . 3 d 4 9 0 ( T e x . A p p . - S a 1 9 9 9p e ti . e f d . ). nAnton r , o Hartman State,946 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 60 1997) H a r t s o c kS t a t e , 3 2 2 S . W . 3 d 7 7 5 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r to p e t1 ) , v. n h20 .0 H a w e s v . S t a1 e ,5 S . W . 3 d 5 3 5 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 " t D i s t . ] , 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t . ) . . t2 ....... 3

. . . . . 66 . . . 22 . . . 73 ....... ........ ...... 70 53 86

. . . . 81 ........ 60

........11

1,7 5

Hawkins State, v. Christi 1993,pet.refd) 865S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 97 Heard State,665S.W.2d v. 1984) 488 (Tex.Crim.App. . v. 2002,no pet.) . . Hearne State, S.W.3d 80 677(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [1"t Heldv. State, 45 948S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997,pet.refd) . [14th Helmv. State, 295S.W.3d Worth2009,no pet.) 780(Tex.App.-Fort Henderson State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin v. no 14 409 2000, pet.) . . (Tex.App.-Fort Hennessev State, v. Worth2010) . 2010WL 4925016 Hernandez State,107S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San v. 41 Antonio 2003,pet.refd.) (1 H e r n a n d e z v . S t a t0 9 S . W . 3 d 4 9T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) 1 e, v. Hemandez State,13 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana 78 2000,no pet.). . H e r n a n d e z vt.a t e , 8 4 2 S . W . 2 d 2 9 4 ( T e x . C r i1 9.9 2 )p . S m Ap Hernandezv.State,983S.W.2d867(Tex.App._Austin1998,pet.ref,d}' H e r r e r a v . S t a1 e , . W . 3 d 4 1 2 ( T e x . A p p . - H o[u s tto n s t . ] 2 0 p e t . e f d ) . t 1S 1" Di 00,r pdr. Hessv. overruled, refused) State,224S.W.3d (Tex.App.-FortWorth 2007)(rehearing 511

. . 73,80 . . 118 . . 155 . . . 23 . . . . 124 . . . . .. 81,82 . . . . 98 52,65 ...... 133

. . . . . . 156 ...... 120

......... .......

1 124

Himev.State,998S.W.2d893(Tex.App.-Houston,[14thDist.]1999,pet.refd). .......12 pet.refd) Hocutt State, v. Worth1996, 927S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 201 Hoqan State, v. 329S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 90 Worth2010). Hofland State,622 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort Worth1981, pet.) no 904 Hollen State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 117 798 2003) pet. Hollin State,227 v. 117 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.]2006, refd) . . . 122 . . . . 104 . . . 39 . . . . 133 .. 144

(Tex.App.-Eastland (Notdesignated publication) . . . . . . . . . . 63 . for v. 1995) Holloman State,1995WL 17212433 ont H o l l o w a v v . t a t e , 6 9 8 . W . 2 d 4 5 ( T e x . A p p . - B e a u m 1 9 8 5 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) S S 7 g3l pet. Holmberqv.State, S.W.2d3(Tex.App.-Houston [1stDist.]1996, refd) . H o l t v . S t a t e , 8 8 7 S . W . 2 d 1 6 ( T e x . C r9m4A p p . 1i9.) . H o w a r d v . S t a t e , 7 4 4 s . W . 2 d 6 4 0 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t . ] 1.9 8 7 , n o p e t . ) (Tex.App.-Dallas for Howev State, v. 2009WL 264797 2009,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) Huffman v.State,746 S.W.2d 212(Tex.Crim.App. 1988) (Tex.App.-Fort Huqhes State, v. 2008WL 4938278 Worth2008,pet.refd) . . . Huohes State, v. 325S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Eastland 257 2010,no pet.). . Huqhes State, v. 334S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011,reh.overruled) 379 (Tex.App.Huqhevv. State,2012WL 858596 FortWorth 2012) . ........ ...... 78 147

.........5 ...... 63

. . . . 115 . . . . 41 . . . 34 . . 162 . . . . . 103 ...... 107

L76

Hulit State, S.W.2d (Tex. v. 982 431 Crim. App.1998) . Human State,749 v. 1988). S.w.2d832 {Tex.Crim.App. Huntv. State, 848S.W.2d 764(Tex.App.-Corpus 1993, pet.) no Christi

. . . . 17 . . . . . 131 . . . 80 53

Huttov.State,977S.W.2d855(Tex.App.-Houston[14thDist.]1998,nopet.).. ........ lg pet. 913 !e,36S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.]2001, refd) .

. . . . . 26 . . . . . 135 . . . . . 42,48 ....... 165

In re State rel.Hilbiq, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San no ex 985 189 Antonio 1998, pet.) . . lrion State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 703 1986, pet.) . no 362 lvevv.State,277S.W.3d43(Tex.Crim.App.2009)

. v. for Jacques State, 2006WL 351 1408(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006)(Notdesignated publication). . . . . . . . . . . 96 Jamail State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 787 380 1990) . J e s s u v . S t a t e , 9 3 5 . W . 2 d O 8{ T e x . A p p . - H o u s t[o n t hD i s t . 1 9 9 6 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) p ] S 5 14 '1998, refd) . pdr. Jimenez State, v. 981S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 393 Antonio . . . . . 68 ....... 69

. . . . 139

(Tex.App.-Fort . Johnson State, v. for 2005WL 3244272 Worth2005,pdrrefd) (Notdesignated publication) . . . 46 Johnson State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 725 245 1987) Tex. J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 7 4 7 S . W . 2(d 4 5 1A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t . ] 1 9 8 8 , p e t . r e f d ) . pet.refd) v. Johnson State, 833S.W.2d Worth1992, 320(Tex.App.-Fort v. Johnson State,913 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Waco 736 1996, pet.) . no pet. v. Johnson State,920 1996, refd) . S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist] 692 [1st . . 141 .....40 ........ 5 . . . . . 83 . . . . . 146
143

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] for Jonesv. State, 2008WL 2579897 2008,pdrfiled)(Notdesignated publication) [1a Jonesv. State,795 171 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) pp. . J o n e s vS t a t e , 7 9 S . W . 2 d 8 3( T e x . C r i m . A1 9 9 0 ) . 6 1 Jones State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2002,no pet.).. v. 80 686 [1"1 Jonesv. State,949 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-FortWorth no pet. 509 1997, h.) ... J o r d y v .S t a t e , 9 6 9 . W . 2 d 2 8 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t9 9 8 , o p e t . ) . S 5 1h n . Kaldis State, v. 926 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1996,pet.ref'd) . [1st Kalisz State, S.W.3d v. (14th 32 718(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.l 2000,pet.refd). . Kapuscinski State, v. 878S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 248 Antonio 1994,pet.refd) . . . . . . . Kaufmanv. State,632S.W.2d 685(Tex.App.-Eastland pet.refd) . 1982, Kavlorv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San 9 205 Antonio 1999, pet.) . . no Keenan State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo no pet.) . v. 700 12 1985,

. . . . . 40 ...... 131

. . . . . 46 ..... 36

.... 138 ... 47 . . . . . . . . 39 . . . . . . . . 63 ....... 93

. . 165 . . . . 159

1-11

Kellv State, v. 824S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) 568

. . . . . . 26 88

K e n n e d v v . S t a t e , 2 6 4 S . W . 3 d 3 7 2 ( T e x . A p p . - H oiu s.t]o n [ 1 r8 ,h . o v e r r u l e d , p e t . r e f d . ) . . . . . . . D st ,200 e

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] Kennedv TexasDepartment Public v. 2009,no pet.) . . 78 WL of Safetv,2009 1453802 [1"t pet. Kennemur State, v. 280S.W.3d 2008,reh. 305(Tex.App.-Amarillo overruled, refd) Kercho State, v. 948S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997,pet.refd) . 34 [14tn Kerr State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 921 498 Worth1996, pet.) no Kerrv.Texas Departmentof PublicSafetv,973 732 1998, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Texarkana no pet.).. . . . . . 79,93 . . . . 66,82 . . 56, 156 . . ... 80

(Tex.App.-Fort Kessler State, v. 2010WL 1137047 for . Worth2010,pet.refd.)(Notdesignated publication). . . 34 K i m b a l l v . S t a t e , 2 4 S . W . 3 d 5 5 5 ( T e x . A p p . - W a c o 2 0 . ).0 , nopet0 Kinqv. State,732 pet.refd) S.W.2d796(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1987, Kirkham State,632 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo no pet.). . 1982, 682 Kirsch State,2012WL v. (Tex.App.-Texarkana . 1583388 2012) ....... 13

..... 1 .... 2 ....... 124

Kirsch State,276 v. S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2008) 306S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2010) 738 579 affd [ 1't 97 Kirsch State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2010) v. 306 738 Klepper State, v. (Tex.App.-Fort 2009WL 384299 Worth2009,no pet.) . Knapp State, v. pet.refd). 942S.W.2d176(Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, Knislev State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 81 478 2002,pet.refd.) . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . 95 . . . . . S2

Koteras State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] for 2010WL 1790808 2010,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) [14th 18
K r a u s e v . t a t e , 2 0 1 2 W L 8 5 6 5 3 6 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t[ 1 aD i s t . ] 2 0 1 2 ) . S 1 on K r u q v .S t a t e , 8 6 S . W . 3 d 6 4 ( T e x . A p p . - E l P a s o 0 0 2 , p e t . e f d . ) . 7 2 r Kuciqmbav.tate,310S.W.3d46Tex.Crim.App.2010) (0 S Kunkelv.State,46S.W.3d328 (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]March 8,2001, pet.refd.) . . . [14th Lacv v. State,875 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no pet.) Lanev. State,933S.W.2d504 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) L a n ev . S t a t e ,9 5 1 S . W . 2 d2 4 2 l T e x . A p p . - A u s t i n 9 9 7 , n o p e t . ) . 1 ........ ...... ....... 95 28 162

. 28,36 . . . . . 163 . . . . . . 44 .... 69

Laroquev.State,2010WL3303857(Tex.App.-FortWorth2010,nopet.)(Notdesignatedforpublication)....124 Lavtonv. State,280S.W.3d285 (Tex.Crim.App.2009, reh.denied) L e a l v . S t a t e , 7 8 2 S . W . 2 d 8 4 4 ( T e x . C r i m9 A p p . 1 . 89) LeCouriasv. State,341 S.W.3d 483 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist] 2011) . ...:.. . . . . . . 109 ...... 44

. . . . 10,37

Ledetv. State,2009 WL 2O5O75g (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.]2009, no pet.) (Not designatedfor publicatio . 152 n)

L78

Leonard State, v. 923S.W.2d 770(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1996,no pet.) Leosv. State,883S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 209 1994) (Tex.App.-Dallas, Leverett State, v. 2007WL 1054140 2007,no pet.) v. Lewis State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 72 704 Worth2002,pet.refd) v. pet. Lewis State, 933S.W.2d172(Tex.App.--Corpus Christi1996, refd) L e w i s vS t a t e , 9 5 S . W . 2 d 3 5 ( T e x . A p p . - B e a u m o n t7 n o p e t . ) . 1 2 199 ,

.... 3 . . . . . 39 . . . . 59 . . . . 52 . . . . 47, 50 ........ 1

(Tex.App.-Houston Lilesv. State, 2009WL 3152174 for . 2009,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). . 57 [1"tDist.] Loarv.State,627S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 399 1981) [panelop] L o q a n v . t a t e 7 5 7 S . W . 21 6 0 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n A n t1 9 8o n o p e t . ) . . d S , oni 8, . . . 52 ....... 43

Lomaxv.State,233S.W.3d302(Tex.Crim.App.2007), habeasreliefdenied,2008WL5085653(Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.l2008,pet.refd) ......144 Lonqv. State, 649S.W.2d 363(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1983,pet.refd) (Tex.App.-ElPaso,2006, refd).. pet. Lonsdalev. State,2006WL 2480342 Lopez State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus v. 805 882 Christi 1991, pet.) no Looez State, v. pet.refd) . . 936S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 332 Antonio 1996, Lorenz State,176 v. S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 492 2004,pdrrefd) . . [1 L o t h r o p S.t a t e , 2 0 1 2 W L 0 5 1 4 5 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) v 16 L o v v . S t a t e , 9 8 2 S . W . 2 d 6 1 6 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 " t D i s t . ] 1.9 9 8 , n o p e t . ) . L u i a n v . S t a t e , S 3W . 3 d 7 6 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p...2 0 1 1 ) 3. 1 . Lvnch State, v. 687S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo 76 1985,pet.refd) . . . . 110 ..... 61

. . . 130,158 . . . . . . 36 . . . 61 ........ 33

..... 39 ........32 . . . . . 97

ry*'llll*:i1lillll1lil--i::"::tl:i'*l'i111'Tl:::T::i?:*::':ill:i::T
M a h a f f e v vS t a t e , 2 0 1 2 W L 1 4 1 4 1 0( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) . 8 M a h a f f e v v . S t a t e , 9 3 7 S . W . 2 d T 1 x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ ' l " t D i1 9 ]9 6 , n o p e t . ) . . (5e st , Maibauerv.State,968S.W.2d502 (Tex.App.-Waco1998,pet. refd) . ... .... ....... 35 138 . . . . 132,135

Malkowskv Texas Department PublicSafetv,53 S.W.3d 873 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.]2001, pet. denied) v. of

Mann State,13S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 2001) 89 132 2000,Affirmed othergrounds S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 58 Mann State,525 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 174 1975) M a n n vS t a t e , 5 8 S . W .1 3 2 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . 3d Manninq State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2003) v. 114 922 Manor State, v. (Tex.App.-Eastland, 2006WL 2692873 2006,no pet.). . . . . . . 14 ...... 120

. . . . 87 . . . . 43,111

1,1 9

Mapesv.State,187S.W.3d655(Tex.App.-Houston[14'hDist.]2006,pet.refd). M a r k e v . S t a t e9 9 6 S . W . 2 d 2 6 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t[o n t h i s t . ] 9 9 9 , o p e t . ). . y 1 n , 2 14 D

...... ........

142 47

Martinv.DepartmentofPublicSafetv,964S.W.2dTT2(fex.App.-Austin1998,nopet...71,84 ) . Martin State,200 v. S.W.3d 635,(Tex.Crim.App.2006) . v. Martin State .2d Worth1987, pet.) no ,724 S.W 135(Tex.App.-Fort Martin State, S.W.3d v. 84 267(Tex.App.-Beaumont 2002,petrefd) . (Tex.App.-El Martinez State, v. for 2005WL 787075 Paso2005)(Notdesignated publication) (Tex.App.-Dallas Martinez State, v. 2010 WL 188734 2010) M a r t i n e zS t a t e , 3 4S . W . 3 9 1 9 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2.0 1.1 ) v. 8 d .. pet. v. Massie State,744 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 314 1988, refd) . M a t a vS t a t e , 4 6 s . W . 9 0 2( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . 3d M a t h i ev . S t a t e , 9 9 2 . W . 2 d 2 5 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t[o n D i s t . ] 1 9 9 9 , p e t . ). . u no S 7 1st Maxwell State, v. 253S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 309 2008,pet.refd) . pet. Mavsonet State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana, v. 91 16,2002, refd) 365 October McBridev.State,946S.W.2d100(Tex.App.-Texarkana1997,pet.refd) . M c C a f f e r t v v . S t a t e , 7 4 8 S . W . 2 d 4 8 9 ( T e x . A p p[.1H Dus tt]o n 8 8 ,p e t . ) . . - 't o i s 19 no McCov State, v. 877S.W.2d 844(Tex.App.-Eastland 1994, pet.) . no (0 M c D uv f S t a t e , 2 0 W L 1 8 4 9 5 4 T e x . A p p . - E l P a s o 2 0.1 .1 ) f. 11 . . pet. McGintv State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 740 475 1987, refd) . [1st . . 134 . . . . 78 . . . 133 . . . 69 . . . . . . 14 ..... 14

. . 53,65 ....... ...... 86

36,40

. . . 61,67 . . . 26 ...... ..... 70 160

..... 2 ....... 12

. . . 1,119 4

pet. McKinnon State,2004WL v. (Tex..App.-Dallas2004,refd)(Notdesignated forpublication) ........ 878278 McKinnon State, v. 709S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort Worth1986, pet.) no 805 M c L a i v . S t a t e , 9 8 4 . W . 2 d O O T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n a 8 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) n 7 { S 199 pet.refd) McRae State,152S.W.3d v. 739(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 02,2004, December [1"t Meadows State, v. 356S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2011) . 33

. . . 67, 114 .... 70 . . . . . . 59,60 . . . . 35, 107

. Mendoza State, v. (Tex.App.-El for 2006WL 2328508 Paso, 2006,pdrrefd) (notdesignated publication). . . . 143 Mever State, S.W.3d v. 78 505(Tex.App.-Austin 2002,pet.refd) . Milam State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston v. 976 788 1998, pet.). . no [1"tDist.] Miller State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 341 440 1960) Millsv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 99 200 Worth2002,pet.refd.) M i r e l e s v . S t a t e , 9 s . W2 3 dT e x a s 1 9 9 9 ) . 1 . 8( . . . . . . 43 . . 156 . . . . . 118 . . . . . 26 ...... 84

IdU

-Waco 2006, pet.refd) . Mitchell State, S.W.3d (Tex.App. v. 187 113 Mitche||v.State,821S.W.2d420(Tex.App.-Austin1991,pet.refd). pet Modv State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1999, refd) . v. 2 652 [14tn (Tex.App.-Amarillo Molina State, v. 2010WL 980560 2010).

. . . . 12

. . . . 77 . . . . 151

Moncivais State,2002WL 1445200 (Tex.App.-San v. for . Antonio 2002,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) 112 Montovav. State,2012WL 1868620(Tex.App.-FortWorth . 2012) Moore State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Beaumont no pet.). . v. 916 696 1996, M o o r e v . S t a t e , 9 8.1 . 2 d 7 0(1 e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 " t D i s t . ] 1 9 9 8 , p . t . r e f d ) T e S W (Tex.App.-San Morales State v. Antonio 2012) . ,2012WL 1648366 Moreno State,124S.W.3d v. 339,(Tex.App.-Corpus 2003,no pet.) Christi M o n i s v . S t a t e , 2 0 1 1 W L 1 7 4( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r0 h 1 ) 3769 2 t1 . M o n i s v . S t a t e , 8 9 7 S . W . 2 d 5 2 8 ( T e x . A p p . -1 9l 9 5ns o e t . ) . . E P a, o p M o s q u e d a S t a t e9 3 6 S . W . 2 d 1 4 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r to r t h1 9 9 6 . o p e t . ) .. v. , 7 W n Mulder State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 707 908 1986) Munozv.State,2010WL3304242(Tex.App.-FortWorth2010). M u r p h v v .t a t e ; 4 4 S . W . 3 d 6 5 6 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s t nn 2 0 0.1.,. S i op e t ) Murravv.State,245S.W.3d37(Tex.App-Austin2007,pet.refd). Neaves State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 767 784 1989) Nebes State, v. 743S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1987, pet.) . . 729 no [1st Nelson State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 149 206 Worth 2004, pet.) no Nessv. State,152S.W.3d 759(Tex.App.-Houston District] 2,2004,pet.refd.) December [1 Nevarez State, v. 671S.W.2d (Tex.App.-El 90 Paso1984,no pet.) . . N e w b e r r vS t. a t e , 5 5 2 S . W . 2 d 4 5 7 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ) v ...... 71

. . 142 ........ 77

. . . . . 89 . . . . . . 30 ........ 30

..... 53 ...... 137

. . . 138 ........ ..... ...... 17 122 96

. . . 116 . . . . . . . . 68 . . . . . 114,122 . . . . 74 . . . . 10 ........ 54

Newell State, v. 2005WL 2838539, (Tex.App.-FortWorth, for . 2005,no pet.)(notdesignated publication) . . . 154 N q u v e n v .t a t e , 2 0 1 0 W l 2 5 1 8 2 T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ i1 4 . ] 2 0 1 0 , p e t . ) . . S ( 50 D st no N i c h o fv , S t a t e , 8 7 7 . W . 2 d 9 4 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r to r t h1 9 9 4 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) . s S 4 W Nieschwietz State, v. (Tex.App.-San 2006WL 1684739 Antonio 2006,pet.refd.) . NottinqhamState, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 908 585 1995, pet.). . no ..... ....... 103 158

. . . . . 150 . . 69,92,93

Noves State, v. (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2007WL 470452 . for 2007 no pet.)(Not designated publication) 111 , [14ft Nunez State, v. 2007WL 1299241 (Tex.App.-Fort . Worth2007 no pet.)(notdesignated publication) . . . . . 127 for , Ochoav. State,119 S.W.3d (Tex.App..-SanAntonio no pet.) . 825 2003,
l_t't-

......

120

Ochoa State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1972) v. 481 847 v. Ochoa State, 994S.W.2d 283(Tex.App.-El Paso1999,no pet.) .

. . . . . 49 . . . . . 26

13 i O q a z v . S t a t e , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 8 9 8 1 3 9 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t h 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t . ) ( N o t d e s i g n a t e d f o r p u b l7c a t i o n ) . . . . . . . (Tex.App,-Austin v. for . Oqden State 2004,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). . . . . . . . . . . 36 ,2004WL314916 O q u n t o p e v . S t a t7 7 S . W . 3 d 4 3 5 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 ' t D i s t . ] 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t . ) . . 1 e, v. Oliphant State, 764S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 1989,pet.refd) 858 Christi pet.refd) . Oppv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston 36 158 2000, [1"tDist.] v. Orona State, S.W.3d 52 242(Iex.App.-El Paso2001,no pet.). . Orrick State, S.W.3d v. 36 622(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000,no pet.) (Tex.Crim.App.2008, Ottov. State,2008WL reh. 313942 denied) (Tex.App.-Waco pet.refd) v. Owen State, 905S.W.2d434,437-39 1995, O'Connell State,17 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 746 2000,no pet.) . . O ' K e e f e v . S t a t e , 9 8W . 2 d 8 7 2 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 " t D in o]p e t9 .8 , S. 1 s t 1 9 . ). O ' N e a l v . t a t e , 9 9 9 S . W . 2 d 8 2 6 ( T e x . A p p . - T y l e r 1 9 9.9 . S n op e t ) , Paqev.State'125S.W.3d640(Tex.App._Houston[1"tDist]2003,pet.refd). Parks State, v. 666S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1984,no pet.). . 597 [1st . . . 67 ...... 61

. . . . 16 . . . . . 39 133,136 . . . . . . 48 ....... 124

. . . . . 78, 84, 119 . . . . 58 ........ ....... 69 84

(Tex.App.-FortWorth no pet.)(Notdesignatedforpublication) 97 Patelv. State,2009WL .... .... 1425219 2009, P a t t o n v . t a t e , 2 0 1 1 W L 5 4 1 4 8 1 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n 2 0 1o n.i o S Ant 1) Peckv.State,753 pet. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, refd) . 811 P e d d c o r d v . S t a t e , 9 4 2 s . W 02 T e x . A p p . - A m a r i l l o 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t . ) . . 10 . ( d Pedenv.State,2OO4WL2538274(Tex.App.-Houston[1 . Dist.] 2O}4,pdrrefld) Penlev State,2 S.W.3d v. pel refd) . 534(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, Perez State,124S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 214 Worth2002,no pet.) pet.denied) Perkins State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.v. 19 854 Waco, April19,2000, pet.refd) . . Penvv. State, 991S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 50 Worth1998, Pesina State, v. 676S.W.2d122(Tex.Cnm.App.198a) ........ 57

. . . . . 132 ........ ....... 38 88

. . . . . . . . 97 . . . . 136 . . 163 . . . 64 . . . . . 93

Peters TexasDepartment Public v. for (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005,no pet.XNot designated of Safetv, 2005WL 3007783 publication) . . 154 pp. P h i f e r v , t a t e , 7 8 S . W . 2 d 9 5 ( T e x . C r i m . A1 9 9 0 ). S 7 3 ...... 131

Phillips State, v. 1999) 491(Tex.Crim.App. 964S.W.2d 735(Tex.App.-Waco 1998,pet.granted part)992S.W.2d in 4s.W.3d122(Tex.App.-Waco1999). ... 136 Phonq XuanDaov. State, 2011,pet.refd) . . 337S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 927 [14th
rdz

. . . . 62

Pipkin State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 114 Worth 2003, pet.) no 649

. . . . 11

pdr for (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1995) refd (Notdesignated publication) Platero State,1995 .144565 v. WL [14th 43
Plattenv. State,2004 WL 100399 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2004, pdr ref d) (Not designatedfor publication) P l e s s i n q e r. S t a t e ,5 3 6 S . W . 2 d3 8 0 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p .9 7 6 ) . v 1 no Plouffv. State,192 S.W.3d213, (Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.]2006, pet.) . . P o i n t e r vS t a t e , 2 0 1 1 W L 2 1 6 3 7 2 1 ( T e x . A p p . - D a l l a s 2 .0 1.1 ) . .. P o n c e . S t a t e , 8 2 8S . W . 2 d5 0 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o[n s t D i s t . ]1 9 9 1 , p e t . r e f ' d ). v 1 Pope v. State,207 S.W.3d 352 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 15, 2006) P o p e v . S t a t e , 8 0 2 S . W . 2 d 4 1 8 ( T e x . A p p . - A 9 9 t in o p e t . ) . . n 1us1, Porterv. State,969 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref d) . P o s p i s i l v . S t a t e , 2 0 0 8 W4 4 4 3 0 9 2 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n a 2 0n o p e t . ) . L 08, P o u l o s v . S t a t e , 7 9 9 S . W .7 6 9 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t [ 1 s t D i s t . ] 1 9 9 n o p e t . ) . . 2d on 0, Prattev.State,2008WL5423193(Tex.App.-Austin2008,nopet.).:.... r P r e s t o n . S t a t e , 9 8 3S . W , 2 d2 4 ( T e x . A p p . - T y l e1 9 9 8 , n o p e t . ) . v . . . . 110 .. 132 . . . . 59,60 .... 3 6 ,1 6 1 .... 66

. . . . 128 ...... 158

. . . . . . 36 ...... ........ .... 12 44 2,50 20

....

Pricev. State,2006 WL 1707955(Tex.App.-Austin 2006, pet. denied)(Not designatedfor publication) . . . . . . . . 56 Pricev. State,59 S.W.3d297 (Tex.App.-FortWorth2001, pet. refd) Purvisv.State,4S.W.3d118(Tex.App.-Waco1999,petrefd) . S Q u e l l e t t e v .t a t e , 3 5 3 S . W . 3 d 8 6 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 1 ) . . . . Dist.]2003, no pet.) . . Quinnevv. State,99 S.W.3d 853 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th v. 1980),cert.denied,101 S. Ct. 256. (1980) Quinones State,592 S.W.2d933 (Tex.Crim.App. Rafaelliv.State,881 S.W.2d714 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994,pet. refd) . Raqanv. State,642 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) R a i l s b a c k vS t a t e , 9 5S . W . 3 d4 7 3 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o[n " t D i s t ] 2 0 0 2 , p erte f d . ) . . 1 . pet R a m o s v S t a t e , ' 1 2 4 S . W . 3 d 6 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t h 2 0 0 3 , .r e f d ) . 2 R a w l i n s s . S t a t e ,6 0 2 S . W . 2 d2 6 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p .9 8 0 ) . v 1 Rav v. State,749 S.W.2d939 (Tex.App.-SanAntonio1988,pet. refd) . Rav v. State,816 S.W.2d97 (Tex.App.-Dallas1991,no pet.) Read v. State,955 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, pet. refd) Reaqanv. State,968 S.W.2d 571 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. refd) . . (3e R e a r d o n v . S t a t e , 6 9 5 S . W . 2 d 3 T 1 x . A p p . - H o u s t o1 s t D i s t .1 9 8 5 n o p e t . ) . , [n ] . . . 84,119,128 ....... .... 156 126

. . . . 56, 58 . . . 44 . . . . 15,40 . . . . . 54 ...... ........ ... 65 92 131

1, 116, 119 . . . . 158 . . . 139 . . . . . . 65 ...... 119

183

Reavis State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 84 716 Worth,2002,no pet.) . pet.refd.) . Reddie State,736S.W.2d v. 923(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, Redfearn State, S.W.3d v. 26 729(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2000,no pet.) Reedv. State, 308S.W.3d 417(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2010) Reed State,916 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo, pet.refd) . 591 1996, Rehav. State, S.W.3d 99 373(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003,no pet.) R e i d w e s S.t a t e , 9 8S . W . 2 d 3 9 9 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n A n t o n i p d1 9e f8 ,) . . v 1 o' r. 9 d r

..;...

. . . 45 . . . . 160 . . 142 . . . . . . 34 ..... 1 . . . 28

.....

100,119

Revnolds State,163S.W.3d V. 808(Tex.App. Amarillo 2005)affirmed othergrounds S.W.3D (Tex.Crim.App. 204 386 2 0 0 6 ). ...... 59 R e v n o l d sS t a t e , 2 0 4 S . W . 3 d 3 8 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) v. R e v n o l d sS t a t e , 4 S . W . 3 d ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) v. 13 Revnoldsv. State,744S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Amarillo pet. 156 1987, refd) . Revnolds State, v. 902S.W.2d 558(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1995,pet.refd) . [1st Rhodes State,945 v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 115 1997) ........ ..... . ..... 89 146 158

. . . . . 36 . . . . 55

Richardson State, v. 2004WL 2g2662(Tex.App.-D 2004, pet.)(Notdesignated publication) . . . . . 12g no for . allas R i c h a r d s o n v . t e , 3 9 S . W .6 3 4 ( T e x . A p p . - A m a r i l l o 2 0 0 0 , . ). Sta 3d n op e t Rivera State, v. pet.refd) 957S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 636 Christi 1997, Rizov. State, 963S.W.2d137(Tex.App.-Eastland 1998,no pet.) . Roane State, v. 2010WL 3399036 (Tex.App.-Dallas for 2010,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) Robles State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 85 211 2002) R o d r i q u e z v . S t a t3 1S . W . 2 d 5 1 5 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) 6 e, Rodriquez State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2000) v. 18 228 ........ 30

. . . . . 136 . . . . . 137 . . . 152 . . . . 133 ....... 65

. . 118

Rodriquez State, v. (Tex.App.-El 2005WL 2313567 Paso2005,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) . . . . 111 for . Rodriquez State, v. 232S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 55 2007) Rodriquez State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San v. 31 359 Antonio 2000,pet.refd) . Romo State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 577 251 1979) R o u s e v . S t a t e , S 5W . 2 d 7 3 6 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . [ p a n e l o p . ] 1 9 8 3 ) 6. 1 Rowe State, v. 2004WL 1050693 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004,pet.refd) (Notdesignated publication) for 1' R o w l a nv . S t a t e , 9 8 3 . W . 2 d 8 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t(o ntD i s t . 1 9 9 8 ,p e t .r e f ' d ). d S 5 ) Rovv. State, 608S.W.2d 645(Tex.Crim.App. op.]1980) [panel Ruizv. State, 907S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 600 Christi 1995, pet.) no . . 101 . . . 136 . . 19,36 ........ 63

. . . 148 ........ 69

. . . . 38 . . . 19

L84

Tex S a l i n a s v .t a t e , 2 0 1 2 W L 1 4 1 4(1 3 3 . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) S pet. v. Salzido State,2011W11796431(Tex.App.-Amarillo refd) . 2011, S a n c h e z S.t a t e , 2 0 1 2 W L 1 6 9 4 5 9 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) v S a n d e r s S t a t e , 9 3 6 . W . 2 d 3 6 . ( T e x . A p p . - A u s1 i9 9 6 , e t .r e f ' d ) v. 4 t n p S pet. Sandovalv. State17S.W.3d 792,(Tex.App.-Austin,2000, refd.) . v. Savaqe State, S.W.2d 933 497(Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (Tex.App.-Austin v. for Sawver State, 2009WL 722256 2009,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) v. Schaum State, 833S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, pet.) . no 644

........ ...... ...... .......

56 102 105 2

. . . 74 . . . 163 . . . . . 20 . . . . . 69

(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] WL Schillitaniv. State,2009 3126332 2009). Vacated remanded2010 2606485 & WL [14tn (Tex.Crim.App.2010) ......'161 (Tex.App.-Beaumont v. Schmidt State, 2010WL 4354027 2010). (Tex.App.-Fort Schornick State, v. 2010WL 4570047 Worth2010) . Scillitaniv. State,343 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 914 2011) . [1a Scottv. State, 564S.W.2d 759(Tex.Crim.App. 1978) Seaton State,718S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin v. 1986, pet.). . 870 no pet. v. Sequra State,826 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 178 1992, refd) . . S e t t l e m i r e vt.a t e , 3 2 3 S . W . 3 d 5 2 0 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t h 2 0 1 0 ) S pet. Shaferv. State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 919 885 Worth1996, refd) Shaub State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 99 253 Worth2003,no pet.) S h e p h e vd S t a t e , 9 1 5 . W . 2 d 7 7 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t9 9 6 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) r. . S 1 1h . . . . . . 109 . . . . 102 . . . . 89,161 . . . . . . 54 . . . . 131 . . . . 36 ........ 33

. . 111 . . . . . 64 .... 53,77

v. 1998,no pet.). ... 70 Shirlev Texas Department Public Antonio of Safetv,974S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 321 v. Sierra State, 280S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 250 2009) Simsv. State, 735S.W.2d 3 (Tex.App.-Dallas987,pet.refd) . 1 91 Sinqletonv. State,91 ..... S.W.3d342(Tex.App.-Texarkana,2002, reh. overruled) Skinner State. v. (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006WL 1420388 for 2006,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication) . . . . 12O 1, 38, 119 .... 34 . . . . . 92

Sfedqe State,1994 247961(Tex.App.-Dallas 9, 1994, pet.)(Not v. .. WL for no designated publication). . . 125 June Smith State,1 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Texarkana v. 261 1999,petrefd) . Smith State,12 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-El v. 149 Paso2000,pet.refd) . . Smith State,158S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2005) v. 463 v. Smith State,207 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2006) 787 (3 e 01, S m i t h vS t a t e , 6 5 S . W . 3 d 3 T 2 x . A p p . - W a c o 2 0n o p e t . ) . . . . . . . 139 . . . . 133 . . . . . 134 . . . . 103 ..... 57,58

1_85

v. 731 1993, pet.) no Smith State,866 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th . S m i t h e v vS t a t e . 8 5 0 . W . 2 d 0 4 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t9 9 3 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) . 2 1h S .......

81

116

(Tex.App.-Austin (Notdesignated publication) . . . . . . 55 .. for v. 2010, pet.) no Snokhous State, 2010WL 1930088 S o t o vS t a t e , 2 0 0 9 W 1 7 2 2 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s t i n , 2 0 0 9 ) . 266 S p a r k s vS t a t e , 9 4 3 . W . 2 d 1 3 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t9 9 7 ,p e t .r e f ' d ). . S 5 1h S p a u l d i n q v . S t a t e , 8 9 6 S . W . 2 d 5 8 7 ( T e x . A p p .[- s to u s t ] 1 9 9n o p e t . ) . . lH Di on 5, 121 no Spebarv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San Antonio, September3,2003, pet.) 61 ........ 58

.. 110 ..... 130

. . . 100

. (Tex.App.-Fort for Spence State, v. 2009WL 3720179 Worth2009,petrefd) (Notdesignated publication). . . 112 v. Spradlinq State, 628S.W.2d123(Tex.App.-Beaumont , pet.refd) . . 1981 S t . C l a i r v . S t a t e , 1.0 1. 3 d 7 3 7 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n [ 1 ' t D i s t . ] 2 0 0 3 , p e t . r e f d ) . S W . . . . . 55 ....... 139 113 50 3,78 ....... .... 25 148 141 11

(Tex.App.-Dallas . forpublication). . .... Stamperv. State,2003 21540414 WL no designated 2003, pet.)(Not S t a n b e r q S t a t e , 9 8 9 . W . 2 d 4 7 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n a 9 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) v. S 8 199 Standeferv. State,59 177 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (T 005, S t a n i n v . S t a t e . 2 0 0 5 W4 3 8 7 5 e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t h 2n o p e t . ) . . 33 L g3T StateEx Rel. Gilfeather, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-FortWorth 46 1996,no pet.) . ........

n An , S t a t e f T e x a s xR e l S t e v e . H i l b i q , 9 8 S . W . 2 d 8 9 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n t o n i o1 9 9 8 , o p e t . ). . . . . . . . o E . 5 1 C S t a t e v . A d k i n s , 8 2 9 S . W02 d T e x . A p p . - F o r t W 1 9t9 2p e t . e f d ) 9 . 0( or h , r pet.refd) . v. State Alderete, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-El 314 469 Paso 2010, Statev. Amava, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 221 797 Worth2007,pdrrefd) S t a t e v A n d e r s o n , 9 7 4 S . W .1 9 3{ T e x . A p p . - S a n t o n i o 9 9 8 , o p e t . ) . . 2d n An 1 ........

. . . . . 15,22 . . . 75 ...... 146

. (Tex.App.-Fort for Statev. Arend, 2005WL 994710 Worth2005,pet.refd.)(Notdesignated publication) . . . . . 23 S t a t e v . A n i a q a , 5 S . W . 3 d 8 0 4 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n A n t9 ,n ierte f d ) . 199 o p o . S t a t e vB a r b e r n e l l , 2 5 T . 3 2 4 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) . S.W d Statev. Binqham, S.W.2d 921 494(Tex.App.-Waco 1996pet.refd) . State Brabson, S.W.2d v. 966 493(Tex.Crim.App.1998) Statev. Brvant, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 161 758 Worth2005,no pet.) v. State Camacho,827 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 443 Antonio 1992, pet.) . no ........ ......... 24 1

. . . . 94 . . . 146 . . . . 31 . . . . 132

. (Tex.App.-Fort for Statev. Carter,2005WL 2699219 Worth2005,pdrrefused)(Notdesignated publication) . 31 v. State Carter, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 810 197 1991) Statev. Cernv, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Corpus 28 796 2000,no pet.) Christi . . . . . 63 . . . 24

186

Statev. Davis, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston 792 751 [14thDist.]1990,no pet.). . pdrrefd) . Statev. Duqas,296 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2009, 112 [14th Statev. Duke, S.W.3d 59 789(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2001,pet.refd) (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2010WL 1255819 Statev. Evans, 2010) . Statev. Franco, S.W.3d 180 219(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005,pdrrefused). v. State Fudqe, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin, , no pet.) . 42 226 2001 Statev. Garrett.22 S.W.3d 650(Tex.App.-Austin,2000, no pet.) (Tex.App.-San Statev. Gaza, 2005WL 2138082 for Antonio 2005,no pet.)(not pub.) Statev. Gerstenkorn, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San 239 357 Antonio 2007,no pet.) . Statev. Gonzales, S.W.2d (Tex. 850 672 App.-San Antonio 1993,pet.refd) . . S t a t e . G r o v e s ,3 7 S . W . 2 d 0 3 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p .9 2 1 v 8 1 19 . Statev. Guzman, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin 182 389 2005,no pet.) . . Statev. Guzman, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin 240 362 2007,pdrrefd) . State Hardv, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 963 516 1997) S t a t e vH u d d l e s t o n ,4 S . W . 3 d 7 1 1 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s t i n , o p e t5 ,. . 16 n 200 .) Statev. Hurd, 865S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 605 Worth1993, pet.) no State Johnson, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2007) v. 219 386 State Johnston, 1 WL 891324 v. (Tex.Crim. 201 201 App.,March16,2011). Cert.denied Oct.3, 1

. . . . . . . . 40 ...... 101

. . . . 138 . . . . . . . . 35 . . . . 85 . . . . . . . 11 ....... 62

. . . 89 . . . 64 . . . 80 ..... 145

. . . 148 . . . . 22 . . . . . 95 ........ 24

. . . . . 95 . . . . 32 108

Statev. Jordan,342 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App., 29,2011). .. 565 June v. State Kellv, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App., 204 808 2006) (Tex.App.-Austin State Kidd,2010 5463893 v. WL 2010, pet.) no

....

101

. . . . 100 . . . . . . . 10

pet. (Tex.App.-Waco2010, overruled) designated publication, refd) Statev. Klein, (Not 2010WL 3611523 for reh. 72 Statev. Kfoecker, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1997, pet.h.) 939 209 no [1st Statev. Kraqer,810S.W.2d 450(Tex.App.-SanAntonio pet.refd) . 1991, v. State Kurtz, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.,200a) 152 72 S t a t e v . L a i r d , 3 8 S . W . 3 d 7 0 7 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s t i n 2 0 0d ),.p e t . ref 0 S t a t e . L i e n d o ,8 0 S . W . 2 d 0 9 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n t o n i o 9 9 8 ,n o p e t . ) . v 9 8 An 1 . State Lucero,979 v. S.W.2d 400 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998,no pet.) .. Statev. Luxon, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Eastland 230 440 2007,no pet.) . . . . . . . . 21 ...... 66

. . . . . . 19 ....... 95

... 95 165 138, . . . . 32

1-87

Statev. Lvons, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 820 46 Worth1991, pet.). . no Statev. Maqee, S.W.3d 29 639(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2000,petrefd) . [1$ v. pet. State Marshall,814 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 789 1991) refd). . Statev. McGuffev, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Tyler 69 654 2002,no pet.) .

. . . . 67 . . 142 . . 147 . . . . . 133

(Tex.App. Worth2006,pet.refd) (Notdesignated publication) . . . 19 for . Statev. McMorris, 2006WL 1452097 Fort v. State Mechler, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2005) 153 435 Statev.Melendes,877S.W.2d502(Tex.App.-SanAntonio1994,pet.refd)......: S t a t e vM o s e l v , 3 4 8 S . W . 3 d 4 3 5 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s t i n 2 0 1 1 ) . . S t a t e v . o v a , 8 7 7 S . W . 2 d 5 0 4 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n A 9 4n o po t . ) . . M 19 ntoni e , . . . . 85 .... 79 ....... ........ 91 80

(Tex.App.-FortWorth Statev. Murphv,2007 . WL2405120 forpublication) . . . . . 31 2007,nopet.)(notdesignated S t a t e v . a i l o r , 9 4S . W . 2 d 5 7 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n t o n i o 9 9 7 , o p e t . ) . N 9 3 An 1 n State Neel, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Tyler v. 808 575 1991, pet.) . no Statev. Neeslev,196 S.W.3d (Tex.App..-Houston Dist.] 356 2006,pdrgranted). [1"t Reversed Statev. Neeslev, S.W.3d 239 780(Tex.Crim.App. 2007) State Nelson,228 v. pet.) . S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin 899 2007,no Statev. Parson, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 988 264 Antonio 1998,no pet.) . S t a t e vR e e d , 8 8 8 S . W .1 1 7 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n A n t1 9 9o n o p e t . . . . 2d oni 4, ) S t a t e vR e v n a , 8 9 S . W .1 2 8 ( T e x . A p p . - C o r p u s C h r i s tn2 0 0 2.,) . 3d i op e t v. State Rios,861S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston 42 [14thDist.]1993,pet.refd) . S t a t e v . R u d d , 2 5 5 S . W . 3 d 2 9 3 ( T e x . A p p . - W a c o 2 0 0 8 , p e t . r e . . .) . .fd . State Sailo, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort v. pet. 910 184 Worth1995, refd) S t a t e v . S a n c h e z , 9 2 5 S . W . 2 d 3 7 1A p p . - H o u s t o n [ l s t D i s t . ] 1 9 9 6 , p e t . r e f d ) (Tex. S t a t e . S a v a q e ,3 3 S . W . 2 d 9 7 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 6 ) v 9 4 199 . Statev. Schaeffer, S.W.2d113(Tex.App.-Dallas pet.refd) . 839 1992, S t a t e v . S e r a n o , 8 9 4 S . W . 2 d 7 4 ( T e x . A p p . - H oD is tto n [ 1 a t,h e t . ) . . u s ] 1 9 9n o p 5 Statev. Stevenson, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 958 824 1997)
S t a t ev . S t o l t e ,9 9 1 S . W . 2 d3 3 6 ( T e x . A p p . - F o r tW o r t h 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t . ) 11

.... 63 . . . 67 . . . . . . 107 ..... . 11 . . . . . . . 37 ........ ........ 80 54

. . 147 ......38 . . . . 11 ........ ..... 2 157

. . . 83 ........ 76

as S t a , tv . S u b k e , 9 1 S . W . 2 d 1 ( T e x . A p p . - D a l l1 9 9 5p e t .r e f ' d ). e 8 1 S t a t e v . T a r v i n , 9 7 2 S . W . 2 d 9 1 0 ( T e x . A p p .9W8 ,c o rte f d ) . 1 - 9 a pe . Statev.Vasquez, pet.).. 140S.W.3d 758(Tex.App.-Houston [14thDist.]2004,no Statev. Waldrop, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Austin 7 836 1999,no pet.) . .

... 54 ...... ..... 25 137

. . . . . . 53

ItJt'

v. State Webre, S.W.3d 381(Tex.App.347 Austin 1) . . . . 201 l o n S t a t e . W h e e l e7,9 0 S . W . 2 d 1 5 ( T e x . A p p . - A m a r i1 l9 9 0 , o p e t . ). . v r 4 v. State Woodard, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. 341 404 2011) . . . Statev. Zeno,44 S.W.3d 709(Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001,pet.refd) .

. . 106 .... 132 . . 31,32 . . . . 28

%*:::"*::::i1l:i.::iiii.]:::]:l':.Til1:ill.*?ll1'10"*o::-i::.i:::,.i:$
Stewartv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2004) 129 93 Stoker State,170S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Tyler, v. 807 2005,no pet.) . . . . . . 83 . . . . . . . 29 v. Stone State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 1986) 685 791 Worth1985), d703S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. . . 10,117 alf 652 S t o v a l l v . S t a1e ,0 S . W . 3 d 7 1 2 ( T e x . A p p . - T y l e r 2 0 0 4 )e r eu l.e d ) t4 ov ( r h v. pet. Streff State,890 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Eastland'1994,refd) . 815 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Strickfand State,2007WL 2592440 v. 2007) . Strickland State,193 v. S.W.3d (Tex.Ap.-Fort 662 Worth2006,pdrrefd.) . ........ 58

. . . 132 . . . . . 93 . . . . . 143
41

v. Strinqer State, 2003WL 21283181(Tex.App.-Fort for Worth, June5, 2003,pet.refd.)(Notdesignated publication) v. Stronq State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Dallas, 87 206 2002,pet.refd) . . v. Subirias State, 278S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San 406 Antonio 2009,pdrrefd.) . S u m m e r s v . S t a1 e , S . W . 31 0 2 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n an o p e t,. ) . . t72 d 2005 Sutton State,2011 3528259 v. (Tex.App.-Dallas 1) . . . WL 201 Sutton State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 899 682 1995) Swearinqenstate,143S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2004) v. 808 Sweenevv.State,6S.W.3d670(Tex.App.-Houston[1"tDist.]1999,pet.refd.) . Swenson State, v. (Tex.App.2010WL 924124 Dallas 2010) Tamezv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2000) 11 198 Tannerv. pet. State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1994, refd). . 875 8 [1st Tappv. State,108S.W.3d 459(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 2003,petrefd) . . [14th .......21 . . . . 105 . . . . . 133 . . 130 . . . .'. . . . 96 . . . . 122 . . . . 108 ..... 139

. . . 87 . . . . 118

Tavlor State, v. (Tex.App.-Austin 2006WL 1649037 for . 2006,pet.refd) (Notdesignated publication) . . . . . 59,60 Tennery State, v. pet.refd) 680S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Corpus 629 Christi 1984, . . . 129

TexasDepartment Public of v. Safetv McGlaun, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 51 776 Worth2001,pet.denied). . . . . . 72 TexasDepartmentof PublicSafetvv.Allocca,30l . S.W.3d364(Tex.App.-Austin2009) ...... 159

pet.denied) . . . 70 TexasDepartment Public of Safetv Bennoit, S.W.2d v. 1999, 994 212(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi TexasDepartment Public of Safetu Butler, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston v. 960 375 [14thDist.] 1998,no pet.).. . . 71

189

T e x a sD e p a r t m e no f P u b l i cS a f e t vv . D u q q i n .9 6 2 S . W . 2 d7 6 ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s t o n 1 s t D i s t . ] 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t . ] t [

80 TexasDepartment Public Worth2009) of v. 293 Safetv Gilfeather, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort 875 TexasDepartment Public Antonio, 2008,no pet.) Of v. 276 Safetu Gonzales, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San 88 61 29

Texas Department Fublic Worth1999,no pet.).. . . . 25 of v. 28 Safetv Hindman, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Fort 989 TexasDepartment Public 2005,rev.denied) of v. 176 Safetv Jaurequi, S.W.3d 846,(Tex.App.,-Houston Dist.], [1 Texas Departmentof PublicSafetvv. 1997, Latimer,939S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin no pet.) . 240 ......
69

70

TexasDepartment Public (Tex.App.-Fort Worth2003,no pet.) . . . . . . . . 72 of Safetv Mitchell, v. 2003WL 1904035 T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t O f P u b l i c s a f e t v v 1M 5 S r e , . 3 d 2 7 0 ( H o u s t o n [ 1 " t D i s t . ] 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t ..)..... . 1 1 2 . 7 oo .W T e x a s D e o a r t m e n t u b l i c S a f e t v v . N i e l1 0 2 S . W . 3 d 3 1 3 ( T e x . A p p . - B e a u m o n t , 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t . ) . 6.1. . . . . P Of sen. . . Texas Departmentof PublicSafetvv. 1999, Rolfe,986 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Austin no pet.) . 823 ........ 75

TexasDepartment Public Antonio 2002,no pet.). . . . . . . . . 78 of Safetv Sanchez. S.W.3d (Tex.App.-San v. 82 506 TexasDepartment Public 2002,pet.denied). . . . . 72 of v. 79 796(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, Safetv Struve, S.W.3d T e x a s D e p a r t m e n tu b l i c S a f e t v v . T h o m a s , 9 8 5 S . W . 2 d 5 6 7 ( T e x . A 1 9 9-8n o p e t . ).. P of pp. Waco , ...... 71 84

T e x a s D e p a r t m e n tu b l i c S a f e t v v . T h o m p s o n.,W . 3 d 8 5 3 ( T e x . A p p . - B e a u m o n to p e t0 ) . . . . . . . . n 200 . , P of 14S

TexasDepartment Public of v. Safetv Walter, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1998,no pet.) . . . . . 70 979 22 [14tn T e x a s . M c C r a r v ,8 6 S . W . 2 d 5 9 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a r k a n a 8 ,p e t .r e f ' d ) . . . . . . v 9 2 199 Thibaut State, v. 782S.W.2d 307(Tex.App.-Eastland 1989, pet.) . . no as n T h o m av . S t a t e9 9 OS . W . 2 d 5 8 ( T e x . A p p . - D a l l1 9 9 9 , o p e t . ). . s , 8 Thurman State, v. 861 S.W.2d {Tex.App.-Houston Dist]1993no pet.) . 96 [1st Tietzv. State, 256S.W.3d 377(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008,pet.refd) . Toddv. State,956S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Waco pet.refd).. 777 1997, Torres State,109S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Fort v. 602 Worth2003,no pet.) ........ 22

. . . 63 ....... 78

95,96 . . . . . . . 135 ..... 147

94,119

Tonesv. State, (Tex.App.-Corpus . 2000WL 34251147 for 2000,no pet.(Notdesignated publication). . 112 Christi Townsend State, 3 S.W.2d181 (Tex.App.-Houston v. 81 , [14thDist]1991 pet.refd) . Tracev State, v. 350S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 1961) 563 Trahan State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Beaumont2000, v. 16 146 no pet.) . . Troffv. State,882 S.W.2d 905(Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]1994,pet.refd) . [1st 16,41 . . . . 63 . . . 28 . . 136

Turnbow State, v. for 2003WL 2006602(Tex.App.-Fort Worth,May1, 2003,pet.refd.)(Notdesignated publication) ....20,21 T u r n e r v . S t a t e , 8 7 7 S . W . 2 d 5 1 3 { T e x . A p p . - F o r t W o r t h 1 9 9 4., n o p e t . } . 6 5 ,1 5 7

r_90

Turpin State,606 v. 1980) S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. 907 pet. Urquhart State,128S.W.3d v. 701(Tex.App.-El Paso2003,reh.overruled, refd) Valenti State, S.W.3d v. 49 594(Tex.App.-Fort Worth2001,no pet.)

. . . . . 68 . . . 74 . . . . 131

Valentich State, (Tex.App.-Fort for . v. 2005WL 1405801 Worth2005,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). . . . 19 V a l l e s v . t a t e , 8 1 7 S . W .1 3 8 ( T e x . A p p . - E l P a s o 1n o p e t . . . S 2d 199 , ) VanderhorstState, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Eastland no pet.) . . v. 52 237 2001, V a r q a s v . S t a t e , 2 T W . 3 d 3 3 8 ( T e x . A p p . - S a n A n t o n i n o p e t ., . S.l o2008 ) pet.) (Tex.App.-Corpus Vasquezv. State,2007WL2417373 Christi2007,no . . V e r b o i s v .t a t e , 9 0 9 S . W . 2 d ( T e x . A p p . - H o u s1o nh i s t ] 1 9 9 n op e t . ) S 140 5, [ t 4t D Vickersv. State,878 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-FortWorth pet. 329 1994, refd) Villav. State, (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009WL 2431511 2009,pet.refd) . . Villareal State, (Tex.App.-Houston Dist]2008,no pet.) . . v. 2008WL 4367616 [1"1 pdr Vrbav. State,151 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Waco, 676 27,2004, refd.) October Waqnerv. State,720S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Texarkana pet.refd). . 827 1986, W a l k e r v . S t a t e , T 0 lW . 2 d 2 ( T e x . A p p . - C o r p u s C h r i spie t9 r e f,d ) S. t 1 .85 ..... 48 . , 12,135 ...... ....... ........ ........ 124 153 79 42

. . 152 . . . . . . 11 ..... 2 ...... ...... 73 151

pdrdismissed) designated publication) (Not Wallace State, v. (Tex.App.-Texarkan for 2005 3465515 WL aDec2},2005, ... 29
W a fl a c ev . S t a t e 7 O 7 S . W . 2 d9 2 8 ( T e x .A p p .- T e x a r k a n a 19 8 6 ) . a f f' d , 7 8 2 S . W . 2 d8 5 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p .9 8 9 ) 1 ,

43 Walters State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] v. 757 41 no 1988, pet.). . [14th Warren State,2011 4036139 (Tex.App.-HoustonDist.]2011,pet. v. WL filed) . [1 Warrick State, S.W.2d v. (Tex.Crim.App. 634 707,705 1982) (Tex.App.-Texarkana2007, ..... Washburnv. State.235S.W.3d346, nopet.) Washinqton State, S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 350 924 1961) Watson State, v. (Tex.App.-Fort 2008WL 5401497 Worth2008,pet.refd) . Weaverv. State,87 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2002) 557 Webster State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Waco v. 26 17 2000,pet.refd) W e h r i n q v . S t a t e , 2 7 6 S . W . 3 d 6 6 6 ( T e x . A p p . - T e x a rn o p e t . 0.0 8 , kana2 ) . Weslevv. State,997 S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Waco 874 1999, pet.) . no Wheatv. (Tex.App.-Houston State,2011WL1259642 [14tnDist.]2011). . . . . . . 136 . . 50,161 . . . 36,38 ..... 70,93

. . . . . 139 . . . . 152 . . . . 139 . . . . . . . 58 ....... 28

. . . . . 139 ...... 105

':::li::*::l::ll:::1T:i:: H*_''1ll:*ili'Il"iilT::":11:?:ll::::lr: i::'1,,

L9L

(Tex W h i t e v . S t a t e , 6 3 4 S . W . 2 d 8 1 . A p p . - A u s t 9n 2n o p e t . ). 1i 8 , pet. Willv.State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] 794 1990, refd) . 948 [1st Wilfiams State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App. v. 116 1,2003) 788 October

.......

129

. . . 132 . . . . . . 48

. (Tex.App.-Dallas for Williams State, v. 2004WL 434622 2004,pet.refd.)(Notdesignated publication). . . . . . . 91 Williamsv. State,307 2010, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-FortWorth no pet.) 862 (Tex.App.-FortWorth nopet.).. Wifliamsv. State,946S.W.2d432 1997, Williamsv.tate,946 .W.2d 86(Tex.App.-Waco 97, opet.) . . S S 8 19 n Wilfiamson State, S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Dallas v. 46 463 2001, pet.) . . no Winborn State, v. 2007WL 1711791(Tex.App.-Austin pdrrefd) 2007, Woodv. Texas 2010, Departmentof PublicSafetv,33l 78(Tex.App.-FortWorth nopet.).. S.W.3d ....... ..... 126 121

... 42,130 . . 137 . . . 11 ..... 7 120 63

pet. . ...... Woodallv. State,2008W13539997(Tex.App.-Austin refd)(notdesignatedforpublication) 2008 W o o d r u f f v . S t a t e , 8 9 9 S . W . 2 d 4 4 3 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s t i n 1 9d )5., p e t . ref 9 Wooten State,267 v. . S.W.3d (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.]2008) 289 [14 ........

. . . 99

-Austin 2000, pet. Wriqhtv. 245 State, S.W.3d (Tex. T 148 App.1999) rev? on remand,18 S.W.3d (Tex.App. Crim. ....... 16 refd). W r i q h t v . S t a t e , 9 3 2 S . W . 2 d 5 7 2 ( T e x . A p p . - T y l o p1 9.9 5., n er et ). pet.refd) Yatesv.State,1 S.W.3d (Tex.App.-FortWorth 277 1999, Yeaqerv. State, S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2003) 104 103 v. Yearv State, 734S.W.2d 766(Tex.App.-Fort Worth1987, pet.) no ...... 157

. . . . . 45 . . . . . 21 97, 159

. Yokom State, v. (Tex.App.-Fort for 2004WL 742888 Worth2004,pdrrefd) (Notdesignated publication) 123,155 Youens State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Houston v. no 988 404 1999, pet.) . . [1"tDist] . . . . 58, 151

. (Tex.App.-Fort for Younq State, v. 2005WL 1654763 Worth2005,no pet.)(Notdesignated publication). . . . . 154 pet.refd) . 1999, Zimmer State, v. 989S.W.2d (Tex.App.-San 48 Antonio1998, Rehearing overruled Zimmerlee State,777 v. S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Beaumont no pet.) . 791 1989, Z i n q e r v . S t a t e , 9 3 2 S . W . 2 d 5 1 1 ( T e x .1 9 i m . A p p . Cr96) . . 129 . . . . . 131 ...... 3

1-92