Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...

XXI. JURY CHARGE
A. OBSERVATION PERIOD
1. NO CHARGE REQUIRED
Adams v. State, 67 S.W.3d 450 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd.).
Davis v. State, 949 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
Ray v. State, 749 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, pet. ref'd).
Not required to charge jury that defendant needs fo be observed continuouslyfor 1 5 minutes before
they can consider lntoxilyzer fesf resu/f.
2. CHARGE REQUIRED
Smithey v. State, 850 S.W.2d 204 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd).
Garcia v. State, 874 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1993, pet. ref'd).
Gifford v. State,793 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990), pet. dism'd, improvidentlygranted, 810
S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
B. ALTERNATIVE CAUSATION = NO CHARGE
1. IN GENERAL
Neaves v. State, 767 S.W.2d784 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989).
Charge that singles out limited parts of the evidence consfifufes improper comment by judge on
weightof evidence. ln fhiscase not entitled tocharge concerning possibilitythatdefendantreceived
a blow to the head the resu/fs of which the officer mistook for signs of intoxication.
Grissett v. State, 571 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Defendant is entitted to jury instruction on another "causation" factor onlv when he: (1) denies use
of alcohol + (2) can explain his suspect actions.
2. FATIGUE
Drapkin v. State,781 S.W.2d710 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1989, pet. ref'd).
When defendant claims fatigue or some other alternative cause that merety negates existence of
element of sfafe's case, no defensive jury instruction need be given.
1t_ 4