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

4. DEFENDANT'S TRYING TO LOOK GOOD ON TAPE
Gomez v. State, 35 S.W.3d746 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.] 2000, pet ref'd).
State argued in response to defense argument that they should rely on how defendant looked on
the videotape was as follows,"They walked him into the room and common sense tells you that
when an individual knows they are being taped and knows it's important, they will straighten up.
They are going to straighten rJp." Defense argument this was outside the record was rejected by
the Courtwhich found thatthe argument represenfed a statement of common knowledge and was
therefore proper.
5. JURY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS ON THEORY OF
INTOXICATION
Price v. State, 59 S.W.3d 297 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd).
The definition of intoxicafion sefs forth alternate means of committing one offense. lt does nof sef
forth separate and distinct or7enses. A jury rs nof therefore required to reach a unanimous
agreement on alternative factual theories of intoxication.
6. TESTIMONY REGARDING AND ARGUMENT ABOUT DEFENDANT'S
FAILURE TO CALL ITS EXPERT WAS PROPER
Pooe v. State, 207 S.W.3d 352 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 15, 2006).
Testimony elicited from state's DNA experts indicating that defendant's DNA expert had been
provided with fhe sfafe's D NA testing and had failed to request additional testing did not violate work
product doctrine; such fact was within the personal knowledge of the sfafeb experts, and a party
could be allowed to comment on the fact that the opponent failed to call an available witness and
then argue that the opponent would have called wifness if witness had anything favorable to say.
This does not violate the attorney work product doctrine.
B. IMPERMISSIBLE
Blessins v. State,927 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, no pet.).
It was reversible error for prosecutor to inform jury of the existence of two for one good time credit
the defendant would receive if sentence was for jail time as opposed to prison and to urge them to
consider its existence in assessrng punishment.
XXIII. PROBATION ELIGIBLE
Baker v. State, 519 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975).
1,26