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

equipment was obserued in the vehicle. Court found that the officer's testimony and the station
house video provided sufficient corroboration of his statement he was driving.
Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404(Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
Where defendant was seafed in truckwith engine running, his statement atthe scene that he was
driving the truck when the accident happened and further statement that 20 to 25 minutes had
elapsed since the accident occurred provided sufficient basis for jury to find defendant was driving
while intoxicated.
Walker v. State, 701 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985, pet. ref'd).
Statement by defendant to officer at accident site that he was driver sufficient evidence to prove he
was driver.
Bucek v. State ,724 S.W .2d 129 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987, no pet.).
Defendant's sfafement that he was the driver may be sufficient when other corroborating evidence
is available.
Folk v. State,797 S.W.2d 141 (Tex.App.-Austin 1990, pet. ref'd).
Provided there is other evidence that a "crime was committed" the identification of the defendant
as the perpetrator (i.e., statement that he was drive) may rest alone upon his confession. ln any
event, proof that car was registered to person defendant lived with = sufficient corroboration.
B. SUFFICIENTCORROBORATIONOF'DRIVING/OPERATING''
Molina v. State,2010 WL 980560 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010).
Officerswere called outto investigate a suspiciousvehicle in a cul-de-sac and upon arrival observed
defendant as/eep behind the wheel of the vehicle. The keys were in the vehicle's ignition and the
car and radio were both on. Defendant was a/so in a position in the vehicle that he was able to
reach the brake pedal. The police officers proceeded to wake him and, after conducting field
sobriety tests, arrested him for driving while intoxicated. ln holding State had proved operating, the
Court points out that any person intending to drive would first have to turn the key to start the car;
the fact that the key was turned and the engine was running could be interpreted by the jury as
operating the vehicle. Though no one obserued appellant start the vehicle, the fact that defendant
was the only person in the vehicle, and in the driver's seat, and able to operate the brake lighfs is
circumstantial evidence that the jury could have used in determining guilt.
1,49