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

IX. VIDEO
A. PARTS OF PREDICATE CAN BE INFERRED
Rov v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Crim.App. lpanel op.] 1980).
Sims v. State,735 S.W.2d913 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd).
That machine was operating properly can be inferred from evidence and testimony supporting
predicate can come from non-operator.
B. NEW PREDTCATE REPLACES EDWARDS
883 S.W.2d
ry-v'Slate, 209 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994).
Rule 901 of Rules of Criminal Evidence controls on issue of proper predicate for admission of
videotapes.
G. OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS
Clark v. State,728 S.W .2d 484 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth , vacated and remanded on other grounds,
753 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987), on remand 781 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989,
no pet.).
Hofland v. State,622S.W.2d 904(Tex.App.-FortWorth 1981, no pet.).
No special training on use of video equipment is necessary if operator has basic knowledge of
operating procedures or instructions.
D. SUPPRESSIBLE ITEMS
1. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Opp v. State, 36 S.W.3d 158 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.]2000, pet. ref'd).
Gray v. State, 986 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999, no pet.).
Loy v. State, 982 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.] 1998, no pet.).
Hardie v. State,807 S.W.2d319 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991, pet. ref'd) but see Griffithv. State,55
S.W.3d 598 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).
Jury should not have been allowed to hear defendant's invocation of his right to counsel on
videotape.
Kalisz v. State, 32 S.W.3d718 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd).
39