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

Johnson v. State, 920 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1996, pet. ref'd).
Court found no double jeopardy. Ihis case involved a refusal to give a breath sample and the Court
found that the Blockburqer "same elements fesf" was not met.
Ex Parte Pee, 926 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd).
DWI is nof a /esser included offense of having license suspended.
D. ALR HEARINGS: NO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Reynolds v. State, 4 S.W.3d 13 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).
Ex Parte Dunlap, 963 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
State v. Anderson, 974 S.W.2d 193 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.).
Ex Parte Richards, 968 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, pet. ref'd).
Adopts the holding and logic of Brabson as precedent. This case, unlike Brabson. did involve a
hearing under the new "ALR" statute.
State v. Brabson, 966 S.W.2d 493(Tex.Crim.App.1998).
Based upon a finding that the district attorney and DPS are not the same parties for administrative
collateral estoppel, the Court found that collateral estoppel did not preclude the district attorney
from litigating fhe r.ssue of probable cause after the administrative judge found that there was no
probable cause for the sfop. (Nofe: this was not a hearing under the new ALR statute.)
Ex Parte Serna, 957 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth1997, pet. ref'd).
(After granting thesfafe's motion for rehearing en banc, the court withdrew its May 8, 1997, opinion
and judgment in which it held that collateral estoppel did prevent the State from attempting to prove
a breath test that had previously been excluded during an ALR hearing and held as follows.) The
Sfafe rs not barred by "collateral estoppel" from relitigating the rssue of the admissibility of the breath
test. "The legislature did not intend that a decision made in a civil, administrative, remediallicense
suspenstbn hearing could be used to bar the State from prosecuting drunk drivers."
Ex Parte Elizabeth Avers,921 S.W.2d 438 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1996, no pet.).
Judge at ALR hearings made finding of fact that there was no reasonable suspicion to support the
stop of the defendant. ln holding that there was no collateral estoppel, the court reasoned that
probable cause determinations at ALR hearings are made on the basis of the information available
at the time of the arrest and do not consider facts coming to light after the anest, including the fact
that accused refused to give a specimen. Therefore there can be no issue preclusion. Court relied
heavily on the Neayes opinion.
t44