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

Sutton v. State, 899 S.W.2d 682 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995).
Heard v. State, 665 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984).
Booher v. State, 668 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1984, pet. ref'd).
Miller v. State, 341 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Crim.App. 1960).
State entitled to when drug use evidence cornes oltt, even though not alleged in charge.
2. NOT FOR "FATIGUE''
Atkins v. State, 990 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.).
Held to be error, albeit harmless, when court gave synergistic charge that spoke to defendant's
"allowing his physical condition to deteriorate." Court distinguishes fhrs instruction from other
synergistic charge situations and holds it bordered on comment on weight of evidence.
3. NOT FOR "THEORY OF INTOXICATION NOT ALLEGED''
Barron v. State , 2011 WL 5375115 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011).
Trial court's error in giving "synergistic effect" instruction regarding enhanced effects when individual
combines alcoholwith medication was not harmless. Af trialthere was no evidence that defendant
had ingested any medication or intoxicating substance otherthan alcohol. Jury had heard definition
of intoxication, and erroneous instruction emphasized State's evidence of combination by suggesting
specific mode of action through which use of "medication or drug" together with use of alcohol could
produce intoxication.
Rodriouez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 228 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
Defendant in this felony DWt triat was alleged to have been intoxicated by the introduction of
"alcohol" into his body. There was testimony at trial by defendant that he had not been drinking
alcohol but had taken cold/flu medication (Contact) that made him drowsy. The charge allowed the
jury to convict if they found the defendant intoxicated "by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a
drug, or a combination of both of these subsfances" intothe body. The State argued th*leard and
Suffon casespermitted this butthe Court pointed outthat Heard and Sutton only speakto charging
that a subsfance made a suspecf more susceptible to alcohol while this expanded the theory by
allowing conviction on theory of introducing a drug into the body.
F. GENERALVERDICT'FORM
Bradford v. State,230 S.W.3d719 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
Fullenwider v. State, 176 S.W.3d 290 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Districtl2004, pet. ref'd).
Torres v. State, 109 S.W.3d 602 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).
Trial Court properly denied request for specific'verdict form in DWI trial. Srnce the definition of
Lt6