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

Dumas v. State, 812 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
lmproper for jury to be allowed to hear officer give defendant his Miranda warnings and ask him
if he wanted to waive his rights. Turning down volume to exclude defendant's refusal could lead
jury to conclusion he did in fact invoke his rights.
2. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO TERMINATE INTERVIEW
Cooper v. State, 961 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.App.-Houston 1997 , no pet.).
Court of Appeals found that the question of '\vhere is he" upon being totd about his right to an
attorney did not constitute an invocation of his right to an attorney. Court further held that the
defendant'ssubseguent statement, "l'm not answering any questions"was an invocation of his right
to terminate the interuiew. This, like the invocation of right to counsel, should not have been heard
by the jury and reversed the case. Court relied on Hardie v. State, 807 S.W.2d 319 Tex.Crim.App.
1991, pet. refd).
3. EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES - !E OBJECTED TO
Johnson v. State ,747 S.W .2d 451 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd).
Extraneous olTenses mentioned by defendant or police on tape must be objected to at time tape
is offered or no error is preserued.
E. NOT SUPPRESSIBLE
1. AUDIO OF FST'S
Jones v. State, 795 S.W.2d 171(Tex.Crim.App. 1990).
Even after invocation of Miranda rights, police reguesfs fhaf suspects perform the sobriety tests
and directions on how suspects are to do the fesfs do not constitute "intenogation;" neither do
queries concerning a suspecfb understanding of her rights. If the police limitthemselves to fhese
sorts of quesfiong they are not "interrogating" a DWI suspect.
State v. Davis,792 S.W.2d751(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.).
Dawkins v. State. 822 S.W. 2d 668, 671 (Tex.App.-Waco, 1991, pet. ref'd.).
Pennsvlvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582,110 S. Ct 2638, 1 10 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990).
Audio portion of video need not be turned off after invocation of rights asthey concern performance
of sobriety tesfs so long as police questioning is of the type normally incident to arrest and custody
and is not reasonably likely to elicit testimony.
40