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

K. NO SOUND = NO PROBLEM
Aouirre v. State,948 S.W.2 d377 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1gg7,pet. ref'd).
Absence of sound on DWI video will not affect its admissibility.
L. MOBILE VIDEO CAMERA TAPE ADMISSIBLE
Poulos v. State, 799 S.W.2d 769 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no pet.).
The fietd sobriety fesf uras videotaped by the officer from a camera mounted on his dashboard.
This videotape u/as not testimonial in nature and therefore did not offend the Fifth Amendment
privilege.
M. STATE MAY SUBPOENA/OFFER DEFENDANT'S COPY
Adams v. State, 969 S.W.2d 106 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.).
Where the State or police inadvertently destroyed sfafeb copy of DWt videotape afrer copy had
been made for defendant, it was proper for State to subpoena defendant's copy and introduce it
into evidence.
N. LOSING VIDEOTAPE BETWEEN TRIAL AND APPEAL DOES NOT REQUIRE
NEW TRIAL
Yates v. State, 1 S.W.3d 277 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref'd).
The fact that a videotape is losf bef ween triat and appeal is not conclusive as to whether a new trial
is granted. If the issue on appeal is intoxication, the video needs to be close in time to driving to
merit a reversal.
O. PROBLEM OF OTHER STOPS BEING VISIBLE ON DWI TAPE
Hackett v. State, 2003 WL 21810964 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2003, no pet.) (Not designated for
publication).
The defense objected when it discovered, while the jury was deliberating, that the DWI tape
admitted into evidence and being viewed by the jury had other sfops on it. The trial court did not
allow the defendant to examine the jurors fo see if watching the tape of the other sfops affected
them. The Court found there was no error because the defendant did not show that the jurors'
viewing other sfops ha rmed the defendant and because the judge had properly instructed them not
to consider fhose extraneous portions of the tape.
PRACTICE NOTE:
If your tape has extraneous sfops on it, edit them out of the tape before you offer it into evidence.
45