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

department more than ten years before the trial. Held the Trial Court properly excluded fhe crossexamination
on theseissues as defense failed to show the relevance of these matters to the merits
of the case or to any defensive strategy.
XIII. IMPEACHING DEFENDANT AND BOND FORFEITURE EVIDENCE
A. PROPER
Ochoa v. State, 481 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Crim.App.
1972).
Where witness makes blanket statements concerning his exemptary conduct such as having never
been arrested, charged, or convicted of any offense, or having never been.in trouble" or purports
to detail his convictions leaving the impression there are no others, (i.e. "opens the door'). This
false impression may be corrected rn cross by directing wifness to the bad acts, convictions, etc.
even though sard acfs may not othentvise be proper subject for impeachment.
Stanberq v. State, 989 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd).
Where defendant on station house videotape made the statement he does not drink atcoholic
beverages, it was proper to elicit testimony from arresting officer that he had seen defendant drink
alcoholic beverages on a prior occasion. Voucher Rule r.s no longer the rule in Texas.
B. IMPROPER
Lewis v. State, 933 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, pet. ref'd).
Defendant statement on direct that he "will not drink and drive" did not amount to an assertion that
he had never drank and driven and did not open the door to his impeachment with a prior DWI
conviction. But the Court found that the mention of the ten year old DWI conviction was harmless
error in fhis case.
Hammett v. State, 713 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).
Testimony on direct that the defendant had only been arrested on one prior occasion for public
intoxication did not leave the false impression that he had never been arrested for any other
offense and did not open the door to his impeachment with a conviction for criminal mischief. Case
reversed on this basr.s for determination of harmfulness of the error.
C. EVIDENCE OF BOND FORFEITURE ADMISSIBLE
Pratte v. State, 2008 WL5423193 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no pet.).
ln this case the defendant was charged in 1998 but was not rearrested and tried until 2008. The
Sfafe, over objection, offered evidence that the defendant failed to appear and had his bond
50