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

J. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BARS INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL ON
DIFFERENT INTOXICANT
Ex Parte Taylor, 101 S.W.3d 434 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).
After being acquitted of lntoxication Manslaughter where the theory of intoxication alleged was
alcohol, the State tried to proceed on another case, different victim, and now adding marijuana as
a possrble source of intoxication. Collateral Estoppel barred.State from relitigating ultimate issue
of intoxication, regardless of whether Sfafe alleged different type of intoxicant.
K. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY WHERE FAULTY UNDERLYING DWl PRIOR
ALLEGATION DENIES COURT JURISDICTION
Gallemore v. State, 312 S.W.3d 156 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010).
After an open plea of guitty to fetony DWI and at a tater punishment hearing, the defense pointed
out that one of the underlying DWI's that was alleged to make the charge a felony was a subseguenf
not a previous conviction. The defense asked to be sentenced for the misdemeanor DWl. The
Court instead granted a mistrial after stating it had no jurisdiction in the case. The State then reindicted
and replaced the defective prior with a good one. The defense filed a writ stating that
double jeopardy had attached in the former proceeding. The Court of Appeals held that double
jeopardy principles do not forbid multiple trials of a single criminal charge if the first trial resulted in
a mistrial that (1) was justified under the manifesf necessify doctrine; or (2) was requested or
consented to by the defense, absent prosecutorial misconductwhich forced the mistrial. Ihis case
fell under "manifest necessity" because the trial court did not have jurisdiction.
XXVI. PUTTING DEFENDANT BEHIND THE WHEEL
A. DEFENDANT STATEMENT THAT HE WAS DRIVER = SUFFICIENTLY
CORROBORATED
Nieschwietz v. State, 2006 WL 1684739 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, pet. ref'd).
In this case, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that he was
drivinq on a public highway while intoxicated, because his extrajudicial confessio n on the videOtape
(that he was making a turn when the other car hit him) was not conoborated by other evidence. The
Court found that the defendant's admission in the videotape that he was driving the vehicle was
sufficiently corroborated by his presence atthe scene, the vehicle insurance documents listing him
as owner of the vehicle, and the officer's opinion based on his investigation that defendantwasthe
driver.
Frye v. State,2004 WL 292660 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.) (Not designated for publication).
Trooper who was dispatched fo scene of accident saw defendant leaning against bed of pickup
truck. Asked if he was okay, the defendant replied he was "going too fast to negotiate the corner
and he wrecked the vehicle." He did not say how long he had been at the scene. He'appeared
intoxicated and admitted to having had some beers while he was fishing earlier that day. No fishing
1"48