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

F. ABSENCE OF VIDEOTAPE
1. NOT GROUNDS FOR ACQUITTAL
Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, no pet.).
lrion v. State,703 S.W.2d362 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986, no pet.).
Absence of videotape in DWIcase is not grounds for acquiftal,
2. UNLESS DESTRUCTION OF TAPE IN BAD FAITH
Gamboa v. State,774 S.W.2d 111(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989, pet. ref'd).
To support motion fo drsmr'ss based on destruction of video, said destruction must be shown to
have been in "bad faith.'
3. NO JURY INSTRUCTION FOR FAILURE TO TAPE
Platero v. State, 1995 WL 144565 (Tex.App.-Houston [141h Dist.] 1995) pdr ref'd (Not designated
for publication).
Logan v. State, 757 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, no pet.).
No jury instruction on state's failure to videotape defendant.
Manor v. State, 2006 WL2692873 (Tex.App.-Eastland, 2006, no pet.).
Where the DWI videotape uras missin g, the defendant was not entitled to a "spoilation" instruction.
A defendant in a criminal prosecution is nof entitled to a spoilation instruction where there is no
showing that the evidence was exculpatory or that there was bad faith on the part of the State in
connection wfh ifs /oss.
G. SURREPTITIOUS AUDIO RECORDINGS
1. PRE.ARREST
Wallace v. State,707 S.W.2d 928 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1986), aff'd,782 S.W.2d 854
(Tex.Crim.App.
1989).
Surreptitiously obtained audio recordings are admissible evidence on pre-arrest situations as /ong
as no incriminating questions are asked without benefit of Miranda warnings.
2. POST.ARREST
Meyer v. State, 78 S.W.3d 505 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref'd).
After arresting the defendant for DWl, he was placed in the back of the patrol unit and then officer
43