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

He stopped and spoke to defendant who stated he had gotten vehicle stuck in ditch. Scene
evidence corroborated vehicle was wrecked and inoperable and officer noted srgns of intoxication
on the defendant. /ssue rar'se d was that even though he was intoxicated when officer made contact
with him, there was no evidence he was intoxicated earlier when accident occurred. ln finding there
was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented that defendant was intoxicated when he was
driving, the Court held that proof of the precise time of accident is not required and that being
intoxicated at the scene of a traffic accident in which the defendant was the driver is some
circumstantialevidence thatthe defendant's intoxication caused the accident, and the inference of
causation is even stronger when the accident is a one-car collision with an inanimate object.
Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010).
Defendant was found behind the steering wheel, injured and intoxicated, at the scene of a one-car
rollover accident, with a blood-alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit. The Court of Appeals
found the evidence to be insufficient to show that appellant was intoxicated at the time that the
accident occurred as there was no evidence of anyone who saw defendant driving on the road or
evidence of when the accident occurred. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed finding, among
other things, that being intoxicated at the scene of a traffic accident in which the actor was a driver
is some circumstantial evidence thatthe actor's intoxication caused the accident, and the inference
of causation is even stronger when the accident is a one-car collision with an inanimate object.
They focused on the driver's failure to brake, his high BAC, and the fact that he was still bleeding
as supporting an inference that the accident was recent, and he had been intoxicated for quite
awhile.
Stoutner v. State, 36 S.W.3d 716 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist] 2001 , pdr refused).
The defendant tried to argue that McCaffertv was controlling. The Court distinguished fhis case
from McCaffertv asfollows: ln this case, there were fifteen totwenty minutesthat passed from the
time of crash to time officer arrived. Blood sample was taken twenty minutes after the arrest (ftfty
minutes after officer's arrival). Extrapolation evidence was offered. No alcoholic beverage
containers were noticed near defendant. The testimony that defendant did not appear to be
intoxicated to another officer who observed him upon arriving at the scene was not disposifive as
the officer was a car length away from the defendant at the time and was not focused on the
defendant. Sfafe wasnotrequiredtoexclude everyotherreasonable hypothesisexceptdefendant's
guilt as that standard was discarded by Geesa. Evidence found to be sufficient that defendant was
intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle.June 11, 2008.
XXVII. CONDITIONS OF PROBATION . LIMITATIONS
A. STAY OUT OF BARS-CHANGE JOB = OK
Lacv v. State, 875 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no pet.).
Requiring defendant to stay out of bars and taverns or similar places, preventing defendant's
continuing current employment, held to have a reasonable relation to crime and defendant's
criminality.
l_60