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

Mathieu v. State, 992 S.W.2d725 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
An officer's request that suspect perform sobriety fesfs and directions on how to do the fesfs do
not constitute interrogation, nor do queries concerning a suspecf's understanding of his rights.
2. FSTREFUSAL
Rafaelli v. State, 881 S.W.2 d 7 1 4 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd).
Dawkins v. State. 822 S.W. 2d 668, 671 (Tex.App.-Waco, 1991, pet. ref'd)
Barraza v. State. 733 S.W. 2d379 (Tex.App.:-Corpus Christi, 1987, pet. granted) aff'd 790 S.W.
2d 654 (Tex.Crim.App.June 20, 1990)
Jury is allowed to hear defendant's refusal to perform the field sobriety fesfs on the video. No
distinction between allowing jury to hear about refusalfo do FSIs or BIRs
VIDEO PORTION AFTER AUDIO SUPPRESSED
Fierro v. State, 969 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.).
Hutfman v. State ,746 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).
So long as visual portions are true and correct, the video is admissible without sound.
, 4. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING BT REFUSAL
Strinoer v. State, 2003 WL 21283181 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, June 5, 2003, pet. ref'd.) (Not
designated for publication).
Griffith v. State,55 S.W.3d 598 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).
Halbrook v. State, 31 S.W.3d 301 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref'd.).
Ex Parte Jamail, 904 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1995, pet. refid).
Refusal to take breath test coupled with and based upon requesf fo consult an attorney is
admissible.
VIDEO PORTION ADMISSIBLE EVEN IF AUDIO DID NOT RECORD
Akins v. State , 2007 WL 1847378 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2007 , no pet.).
Burke v. State, 930 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996 pet ref'd).
Video rs admrssible so long as predicate for introduction of photo is met.
4I