03.04.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

R. OFFICER'S NARRATIVE ON PERFORMANCE OF FST'S<br />

1. CUMULATIVE<br />

Evans v. State, 2006 WL 1594000 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pdr ref'd).<br />

In this case the defendant objected to admissibility of the audio portion of the DWI tape because<br />

of the officer's verbal narrative conclusions about defendant's performance on fhe FSIs. Because<br />

the jury had already heard the officer describe the same matters on direct without objection, the<br />

taped comments were merely cumulative and did not require reversal.<br />

2. INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY<br />

Fischer v. State, 252 S.W.3d 375 (Tex.Crim.App.2008).<br />

At a Motion fo Suppress hearing, defendant sought to suppress the sound on the videotape where<br />

the officer's recorded commentary of what was occurring during traffic stop and where the officer<br />

dictated on videotape his obseruations of DWI suspect. The trial Court denied the Motion to<br />

Suppress; the defendant plead nolo and appealed. The Court of Appeals rejected fhe Sfafe's<br />

argument that these sfafemenfs were admissible as "presenf sense impression" and held that the<br />

comments were the equivalent to police report or offense report offered for truth of mafter asserfed,<br />

and thus, inadmissible hearsay, and the case was reversed and remanded.<br />

X. IN.COURT DEMONSTRATIONS/EXHIBITS<br />

A. FIELD SOBRIEW TESTS<br />

Bakerv. State,879 S.W.2d218 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1994, pet. ref'd).<br />

Court properly refused to allow defendant to demonstrate his ability to perform FSIs in court as<br />

no predicate was laid as to reliability or probative value of said demonstration.<br />

B. SMELLTEST<br />

Lewis v. State, 933 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi1996, pet. ref'd).<br />

Defendant claimed beer he was consuming was non-alcoholic beer to explain odor officers<br />

detected on his breath at time of stop. Defense counsel wanted to do experiment where officers<br />

in front of the jury would be asked to judge which of 9 cups had alcoholic and which had nonalcoholic<br />

beer. Test was properly disallowed as conditions of fesf s ubstantially differed from fhose<br />

existing at time of the stop.<br />

47

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!