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

unning, radio playing loudly, and defendantwas sitting in driver's seat either asleep or passed out,
and there was testimony indicating that vehicle was not in park and that the only thing keeping
vehicle ftom moving was the curb - then that was sufficient evidence that he was "operating" his
motor vehicle.
Vasquez v. State , 2007 WL 2417373 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2007, no pet.).
Officer found defendant asleep in the driver's seat of his vehicle with the engine running, the gear
in "park," and the headlights on. The vehicle was situated in the center of two eastbound lanes on
a public roadway. After officer approached the vehicle, he proceeded to open the driver's side door,
and as he leaned inside the car to turn off the engine, he noticed a strong odor of alcohol on
defendant's breath and person. Appellantwas unresponsive at first but ultimately woke up and was
determined to be intoxicated. Evidence held to be sufficient proof of operating.
Cartegena v. State , 2006 WL278404 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (Not
designated for publication).
Case where officer first spotted defendant's vehicle parked on the Shoulder of the roadway and
defendant standing next to it urinating. Driver's seaf was empty and his wife was in the frant
passenger seat. Held that his statement that he was driving was sufficiently corroborated.
Farmer v. State,2006 WL 3844169 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Dec 28, 2006, pet.ref'd).
Officer noticed a car on the shoulder that had its hazard lights on. He testified that a female
appeared to be changing a flat tire. He and another trooper stopped fo see if the female needed
asslstance and noticed she appeared to be intoxicated. ln attacking the sufficiency of the proof that
the defendant operated her vehicle, she points to the fact that there was no evidence that the car's
engine was running or had been running before the troopers approached the car, that neither
trooper testified that the vehicle's hood or engine compartment was warm, that there was no
evidence to show how long the car had been parked in the access road before the troopers saw it,
that the state failed to offer any evidence that she taras the owner of the car, that no wifnesses
testified that they saw her operate the car, and that there was no evidence to link her physical state
at the scene of the arrest to her physical state at the time of the alleged driving. The defendant had
told the officers she was on her way home from Denton. This statement was sufficient corroborated
by the evidence that the troopers had stopped to help the defendant about ten miles outside of
Denton. The defendant's car, with the flattire, was in the middle of the Interstate service road. The
troopers noted thatthe defendant's hazard lightswere flashing and thatthe keyswere in the ignition.
Although the troopers remained at the scene for an extended period of time, no one besides
defendant approached the car. The Court held that this evidence sufficiently corroborated the
defendant's extrajudicial admission that she was on her way home from Denton and wastherefore
operating a motor vehicle.
Younq v. State , 2005 WL 1654763 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2A05, no pet.) (Not designated for
publication).
Defendant's extra judicial statementsthat he consumed sixto eight beers, that he drove the vehicle
on the freeway and lost controlwere sufficiently corroborated by testimony he was found next to the
r_51