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

Wriqht v. State, 932 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1995, no pet.).
Basis for stop came over radio dispatch where concerned citizen observed the bad driving and got
close enough fo see there was only one person in the vehicle and then /osf sighf of defendant who
drove away. Officer found vehicle that matched description stopped in the roadway with his foot on
the brake pedal. Even though citizen could not identify driver in court, it was held there was enough
proof for jury to find defendant was the same person driving.
Denton v. State, 911 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).
To find "operation" of a'motor vehicle, the totality of the circumstances musf demonstrate that the
defendant took action to affect the functioning of his vehicle that would enable the vehicle's use.
Starting the ignition and rewing the accelerator was sufficient. Court rejected argument that some
actual movement was required and cited Barton.
Barton v. State, 882 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.).
Afficer found vehicle standing still in roadway with engine idling. Motorist was alone in early
morning hours and was as/eep behind wheel with feet on clutch and brake. When aroused by police
officer, motorist immediately exerted personal effort to control truck and affect functioning by
engaging clutch, changing gears, and reaching to start engine which had been turned off by officer.
Dr'scussion of the rejection of the "reasonable hypothesis standard" rejected in Geesa. Looking at
the totality of the circumstances, Court held the evidence was sufficient. ln so finding, the Court
explained: "We do not accept 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."
Turner v. State, 877 S.W.2d 513 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no pet.).
1) police respond to accident scene,'
2) defendant standing next to car;
3) steam coming from hood of car;
4) electricity transformer appeared to have been hit and
electricity went out about 15 minutes before;
5) defendant admitted driving.
Ihrs case hetd that defendant's admission of driving, though not sufficient by itself, need only be
corroborated by some other evidence.
Nichols v. State, 877 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, pet. ref'd).
1) urlfness viewed defendant drive away from party in an intoxicated state;
2) 20 minutes later defendant's vehicle found abandoned along side of the road, and the
defendant was standing 30 feet away from it.
1_55