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

J. NO DEFINITION OF "NORMAL USE'' SHOULD BE GIVEN
Murphv v. State, 44 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, no pet.).
It was improper for the Court to charge the jury on a definition of "normal use."
But see Daw v. State, 67 S.W.3d 382 (Tex.App.-Waco, 2001, no pet.) for a contrary holding.
K. NO SUCH THING AS "ATTEMPTED DWI''
Stronq v. State, 87 S.W.3d 206 (Tex.App.-Dallas,
2002, pet. ref'd).
Evidence was presented that the officer saw a vehicle stopped in the middle of the road, facing
north, with its hazard lights blinking. The officer saw the suspecf alone in the driver's seat of the
vehicle and observed the rear reverse lights were illuminated which he testified meant that the
ignition of the vehicle had to be on. After speaking with fhe suspect and asking her fo sfep out of
the vehicle that suspect put the vehicle in park and got out of the vehicle. She was later arrested
for DWl. The trialjudge directed the State out on DWI and submitted the /essercharge of attempted
DWI to the jury for which she was convicted. The State tried to appeal the acquittal on the DWI
charge and the Court of Appeals held that it was barred from doing so by double jeopardy and it
further held thereis no such thing as Attempted DWI and remanded the case for acquittal.
L. NOCHARGEON INVOLUNTARYINTOXICATIONANDAUTOMATISM DEFENSE
IN THIS DW/PRESCRIPTION DRUG CASE
Nelson v. State, 149 S.W.3d 206 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.).
Case involved a defendant who was tried for DWI from ingestion of prescription drugs. The
Defendant appealed the courl's denial of his request for a charge on involuntary intoxication and
automatism. lnvoluntary intoxication by prescription medication occurs only if the individual had no
knowledgeof possibleintoxicatingsdeeffecfs of thedrug, sinceindependentjudgmenf isexercrsed
in taking the drug as medicine, not as an intoxicant. In this case, the defendant had taken the drugs
before and was aware of their effect. Another reason the defensive charge was not available was
that although involuntary intoxicationis a defense to criminal culpability, proof of a culpable mental
sfafe is not required in prosecutions for intoxication offenses, including DWl. Claim of automatism
fails because that defense is nof available when, as here, the defendant voluntarily took the
intoxicant.
M. NO MEDICAL EXCUSE INSTRUCTION
Burkett v. State, 179 S.W.3d 18 (Tex.App. San Antonio 2005, reh. overruled).
The defense argued and presented evidence in this case that what the officer thoughf was srBns of
intoxication were actually AID's related complications. An instruction was requested on thatissue
and denied. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant's medical excuse instruction was not a
statutorily-enumerated defense. lt merely served as evidence that they could argue would negate
120