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

wheels was consr.stent with the wheels scraping the curb, and it appeared the car had been driven
on its rims. Court found evidence was sufficient on issue of operating. ln response fo the argument
thatthe car's mechanicalcondition prevented its being driven, the Court held thatthe State did not
have to prove that appellant drove or operated a fully-functional car.
Yokom v. State,2OO4WL742888 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pdr ref'd) (Not designated for
publication).
On the issue of whether the State proved "operating." The officer found the defendant in his parked
vehicle with motor running and slumped over the wheel of the car. He also found him to be
intoxicated and the defendant admitted to consuming alcohol earlier. There were no open
containers in the car. The court held that regardless of whether the defendant operated his truck
in the officer's presence, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he
operated his truck prior to the officer's arrival and that he was intoxicated when he did so.
Freeman v. State, 69 S.W.3 d 374(Tex.App.-Dallas zl}2,no pet.).
Officer found defendant in her Ford Explorer with its right front tire against a curb, its motor running,
the gear in the "drive" position, and its lights on. He tried to rouse fhe sleeping woman in the driver's
seat, but she did not respond at first. Ultimately, he woke her up and arrested her for DWl. The
Courtfound thatthe circumstantial evidence indicated thatthe defendant, while intoxicated, exerted
personal effort upon her vehicle by causing the motor to be running, the lights to be on, and by
shifring the gear to drive. Further, as the result of her effort, the vehicle's wheel rested against the
curb of a public sfreef. Conviction affirmed.
Hearne v. State,80 S.W.3d677 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.] 2OO2,no pet.).
Defendant's truck was parked in a moving lane of traffic on a service road. His head was resting
on one hand and leaning against the driver's side window. The other hand was near his waist. The
engine was running; gearshift was in park. He was not touching the accelerator or brake pedals.
The officer did not see the defendant exert any action to attempt to control the truck. Court held that
there was sufficient proof of "operating" citing Denton and Barton.
Chafoupka v. State, 20 S.W.3d 172 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, April 18, 2000, pet ref'd).
ThefollowingfactswereheldtobesufficientundertheNewPosf-Geesa "legalsufficiency"standard.
Two witnesses observed defendant driving erratically-at one point driving into adjoining lane and
hitting another vehicle and then continuing to drive off at a high rate of speed. One witness got the
Iicense number of the defendant's vehicle. Police with aid of license number and notice that
defendant was in a rest area found defendant in rest area. A witness at rest area noticed defendant
get out of his vehicle with two beer bottles and a sack and noted he was stumbling and had ditficulty
with his balance and proceeded to urinate in public. When officer arrived at scene, defendant was
sitting on a bench and drinking beer and was obviously intoxicated. Defendant failed FSTs and was
arrested for DWI. Resf area was a couple miles from scene of collision. Good discussrbn of old
standard that required the "reasonable hypothesis" analysis which was replaced in Geesa v. State.
820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
153