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

tried to avoid the collision. The drssenf argues that the finding was not appropriate because the
defendant did not cause this accident and was merely involved in an accident with a "careless driver
who was injured." The Court majority focused on the lack of evidence that defendant attempted to
brake before the crash even though he saw the other vehicle in time to do so, and the fact the jury
could have found evidence the defendant was speeding.
Woodall v. State, 2008 WL 3539997 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008 pet. ref'd) (not designated for
publication).
ln this case witness fesfffied that defendant entered his lane of traffic and almost hit his truck.
Witness had to slow down when defendant entered his lane and further described how defendant
struck several traffic barrels which was sufficient proof that he was "actually endangered" by the
defendant's driving so a deadly weapon finding would stand.
Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825 (Tex.App..-San Antonio 2003, no pet.).
ln this case officer testified that there were other vehicles on the road when the defendant drifted
out of his lane and came "real close to striking and hitting" another vehicle. The Court found this
was sufficient because there were "other drivers on the road who were actually endangered by the
defendant's use of his vehicle" so the deadly weapon finding was proper.
Mann v. State, 58 S.W.3d 132 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).
Testimony showed that defendant almost hit a"nother vehicle "head-on" when ff crossed the center
Iine and that other vehicle took evasive action and avoided the collision. The arresting officer further
testified that based on his experience reconstructing accidents, he was of the opinion that a collision
under fhose circumstances would have been capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Charge on and finding of Deadly Weapon was proper.
Davis v. State, 964 S.W.2d 352 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
Testimony showed that the defendant was weaving and drove in the oncoming lane of traffic
resulting in another vehicle having to take evasive action to avoid a collision. Deadly Weapon
finding was proper.
2. MAY OR MAY NOT BE PROPER?
Drichas v. State , 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) on remand 187 S.W.3d 161
(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006) pdr granted, judgment vacated by 210 S.W.3d 644 (Tex.Crim.App.
2006) on remand to 219 S.W.3d 471 (Tex.App.-Texarkana2007 pet. ref'd).
Court of Appeals had found there was insufficient evidence to show that the motor vehicle in this
case was used as a deadly weapon because it found there was no evidence that others were
actually endangered. ln reversing this holding, the Court of Criminal Appealsfound that the Court
1_ 18