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

intoxication sefs forfh alternative means of committing one offense, a special verdict form is not
needed when multiple theories of intoxication are alleged.
See Also!
Price v. State, 59 S.W.3d 297 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd).
Blok v. State, 986 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd).
Chauncev v. State,837 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992), aff'd., 877 S.W.2d 305
(Tex.Crim.App. 1994).
Reardon v. State, 695 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no pet.).
McGintvv. State, 740 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd).
Sims v. State, 735 S.W.zd 913 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd).
Ray v. State,749 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, pet. ref'd).
Though separate theories of intoxication are alleged, a generalverdictform is sufficient if evidence
suppor{s conviction under either theory.
G. SEPARATE VERDICT FORMS?
Reidweg v. State, 981 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pdr. ref'd).
Ray v. State,749 S.W.2d 939, 944 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, pet. ref'd).
Atkinson v. State,923 S.W.zd21,23 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).
Davis v. State, 949 S.W. 2d 28,29-30 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997 , no pet.).
Owen v. State, 905 S.W.2d 434,437-39 (Tex.App.-Waco 1995, pet. ref'd).
Ihese opinions say that separate verdict forms should have been given but further hold that the
failure to do so was harmless so there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt under
either theory of intoxication. So they really don't contradict ffie cases cited in (H above.
H. DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION TNSTRUCTION
Hernqndez v. State,842 S.W.2d 294 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).
Defendant has no burden to show he has a valid drivers license to be entitled to a jury instruction
that the jury can recommend his driver's license not be suspended.
I. MOTOR VEHICLE AS A DEADLY WEAPON IN A DWI CASE
1. IS PROPER
Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009).
In this felony DWI case, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals holding that
there is insufficient evidence that the defendant's vehicle vyas used as a deadly weapon. The facts
show the defendant struck a vehicle that pulled out of an apartment complex parking lot. The
defendant argued he was not speeding, he had the right of way, his view was obstructed, and he
1-1_7