Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
E,<br />
F.<br />
G.<br />
H.<br />
t.<br />
J.<br />
K.<br />
L.<br />
M.<br />
N.<br />
o.<br />
P.<br />
a.<br />
R.<br />
S.<br />
T.<br />
U.<br />
V.<br />
SYNERGISTIC CHARGES 115<br />
1. PROPER 115<br />
2. NOTFOR'FATIGUE" .....,..116<br />
3. NOT FOR'THEORY OF INTOXICATION NOT ALLEGED' 116<br />
GENERAL VERDICT FORM 116<br />
SEPARATE VERDICT FORMS? 117<br />
DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION INSTRUCTION .<br />
MOTOR VEHICLE AS A DEADLY WEAPON IN A DWI CASE<br />
1. IS PROPER<br />
117<br />
117<br />
117<br />
2. MAYORMAYNOTBEPROPER? .... 118<br />
3. IS NOT PROPER 119<br />
4. NOTICE MUST BE ADEQUATE AND TIMELY<br />
NO DEFINITION OF "NORMAL USE" SHOULD BE GIVEN<br />
NO SUCH THING AS "ATTEMPTED DWI' .<br />
119<br />
120<br />
120<br />
NO CHARGE ON INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION AND AUTOMATISM<br />
DEFENSE IN THIS DWYPRESCRIPTION DRUG CASE<br />
NO MEDICAL EXCUSE INSTRUCTION . .<br />
NO JURY INSTRUCTION ON FAILURE TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE . . . .<br />
DEFINITION OF "OPERATING" IN CHARGE<br />
1. NOT ERRORTO DENYREQUEST<br />
2. NOT ERROR TO GIVE JURY DEFINITION OF 'OPERATING'<br />
NO JURY INSTRUCTION ON BTR CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE . . .<br />
ERROR TO CHARGE ON CONCURRENT CAUSATION IN DWI CASE<br />
NOT ENTITLED TO A CCP 38.23 INSTRUCTION<br />
PER SE DEFINITION OPTION SHOULD BE SUBMITTED-LIMITING<br />
INSTRUCTION IMPROPER<br />
PROPER TO SUBMIT INSTRUCTION THAT INTOXICATION CAUSED<br />
BY DRUGS<br />
DEFINITION IN JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO<br />
EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL<br />
WHEN CHARGE SPECIFICALLY USES SUBJECTIVE DEFINITION<br />
OF INTOXICATION AND NOT PER SE DEFINITION, THE PER SE<br />
DEFINITION SHOULD NOT BE IN JURY INSTRUCTION . .<br />
XXII. JURYARGUMENT<br />
PERMISSIBLE ...<br />
1. DEFENDANT FAILEDTO BLOW BECAUSE HE KNEW<br />
HE WOULD FAIL .<br />
2.<br />
3.<br />
4.<br />
5.<br />
DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO DO FST'S ON VIDEO<br />
DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO DO ANYTHING (i.e. FST'S, BT) . .<br />
DEFENDANT'S TRYING TO LOOK GOOD ON TAPE<br />
JURYDOES NOT HAVETO BE UNANIMOUS ON THEORYOF<br />
INTOXICATION..<br />
6. TESTIMONYREGARDINGAND.ARGUMENTABOUT<br />
B.<br />
DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO CALL ITS EXPERTWAS PROPER . . . . . . . .<br />
IMPERMISSIBLE .<br />
XXIII. PROBATION ELIGIBLE<br />
120<br />
120<br />
121<br />
121<br />
121<br />
121<br />
122<br />
122<br />
122<br />
XXIV. PRIORS/ENHANCEMENTS ....<br />
A. PROVING DEFENDANT IS PERSON NAMED IN JUDGMENT<br />
1. I.D. MUST BE BASED ON MORE THAN "SAME NAME'<br />
2. BOOK-IN CARD MUST BE TIED TO JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE<br />
127<br />
127<br />
127<br />
127<br />
3. PROOF OF ID POSSIBLE WITHOUT PRINTS OR PHOTOS . . . . 127<br />
123<br />
124<br />
124<br />
125<br />
125<br />
125<br />
125<br />
125<br />
125<br />
126<br />
126<br />
126<br />
126<br />
126