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