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

Smith v. State, 158 S.W.3d 463 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).
This wasa case where the defendant agreed to stiputate to two prior convictions in a fetony DWt
trial. He later challenged the conviction on appeal on the basis that one of the priors was too remote
under the current rule for calculating such priors as has been articulated in the Geffs case. The
Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction and the use of the remote prior stating that the
defendant waived appellate challenge to remoteness of the "prior conviction used as predicate
conviction for felony sentencing by confessing such prior conviction by stipulation."
8. JURY INSTRUCTTON MUST ADDRESS THE STIPULATION
Martin v. State, 200 S.W.3d 635, (Tex.Crim. App. 2006).
Ihis is a felony DWI case that focused on alleged error in the jury instructions regarding failure to
address the defendant's stipulation to his priors. Ihrs is a great opinion for those who have any
doubts about the rules regarding the acceptance of such stipulations and how the priors may be
addressed during the trial. ln part, the Court reaffirmed that: when a defendant offers to stipulate
to jurisdictional priors in a felony DWI case, the State may (but is not required) to read the entire
indictment, including the two jurisdictional allegations (but only those two) in arraigning the
defendant in the presence of the jury; both the State and the defense may voir dire the jury
concerning the range of punishment for both a felony and misdemeanor DWI; the jury need not be
informed of the particulars of the prior convictions in reading the indictment, voir dire, opening or
closing arguments or in the jury charge itself; a defendant's stipulation to the two prior DWls, being
in the nature of a judicial admission, has the legal effect of removing the jurisdictional element from
contention; a defendant may not offer evidence or argument in opposition to his stipulation; during
the trial, the jury may be informed of the stipulation and any written stipulation may be offered into
evidence before the jury, but the evidence is sufficient to support a defendant's conviction even if
the stipulation is not given or read to the jury; in a bench trial, the guilt and punishment stages are
not bifurcated, so the State is not required to offer the stipulation during the initial portion of the
hearing, even if the proceeding is improperly bifurcated.
The new requirements addressed by the Court are that:
1) The jury charge must include some reference to the jurisdictional element of two prior DWI
convictions in a felony DWI trial;
2) The jury charge must include some reference to the defendant's stipulation and its legal effect
of establishing the jurisdictional element.
.3) Any error in failing to include in the jury charge some reference to the jurisdictional element and
the stipulation is analyzed under Almanza.
In this case, the charqe failed to do 1 thru 3. but Court found error to be harmless.
9. DEFENDANTWHO STIPULATES TO PRIORS ON CONDITION THEY NOT
BE MENTIONED WAIVES ABILITY TO COMPLAIN THEY WERE NOT
PROVED
Brvant v. State, 187 S.W.3d 397 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).
ln this case, the defendant stipulated on the condition that the State not mention or offer evidence
1_32