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

Roane v. State , 2010 WL 3399036 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (Not designated for
publication).
In this case a 911 call about a major accident led officer to arrive at scene of crash where he found
defendant outside of the vehicle. Court held evidence sufficient that defendant had driven the
vehicle based on factthat defendantwasfound standing nexttothe driver's door of the vehicle, had
the vehicle's keys in his pocket, and told officer that passenger's injury prohibited her from driving.
Ledet v. State, 2009 WL 2050753 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"1Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (Not designated for
publication).
Police dispatcher received approximately 15 reports of a disabted car btocking two lanes of traffic
on the freeway. When officer arrived at the scene around 6:00 a.m., he saw that the car was
perpendicular to the flovi of traffic, blocking two of the freeway's four lanes, located approximately
a quarter mile from the nearest freeway exit ramp and 200 to 300 yards from the nearest freeway
entrance ramp. Defendantwas unconscious and sifting in the driver's seat, which was in the "laidback
position." The car's engine vyas running, the transmsslbn was in the "park" gear, and the
driver's window was down. Defendant smelled of alcohol and eventually woke up after officer
administered two "sternum rubs." Defendant refused to take field-sobriefy fesfg and admitted on
cross-examination he had no idea how long the car had been stopped on the freeway, whether he
had driven the car, or if anotherpassenger had been in the car before he arrived atthe scene.
Court held evidence was sufficient and cites to other cases that remind us that "reasonable
hypothesis" standard is gone.
Villa v. State, 2009 WL2431511 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. ref'd).
Defendant's vehicle was found parked in the landscaped area of the apartment complex with
headlights on, engine running and defendant sitting behind the wheel with his head resting against
the steering wheel. Defendant argues that his vehicle was in park and that no one saw him start,
shift, or otherwise operate the vehicle. The Court rejected this argument pointing out that even
though there was no direct evidence to show defendant drove the car to its resting place, there was
legally and factually sufficient circumstantial evidence that he did so.
Watson v. State, 2008 WL 5401497 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref'd).
ln this case a taxicab driver testified that he observed a vehicle driving erratically on the date in
question and reported the incident to the police. An officer in the vicinity testified that he found a
vehicle matching the description given by the taxi driver stopped on a grassy median with the
defendant slouched over in the driver's seat with the lights on and engine running. Citing the
Denton case, the Court sfafed that it rejected the contention that to operate a vehicle within the
meaning of the statute, the driver's personal effort must cause the automobile to either move or not
move. Purposely causing or restraining actual movement is not the only definition of "operating" a
motor vehicle. In this case there was sufficient proof of "operating" a motor vehicle.
Dornbusch v. State, 262 S.W.3d 432(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Where defendant's vehicle was found in back of restaurant parking lot with headlights on, engine
150