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

defendant identification questions aswould be beyond normalTerry stop guesfions. Even though
it was error to allow the jury to hear statements, the case was not reversed as Court found it did
not contribute to defendant's conviction or punishment.
Alford v. State, 22 S.W.3d 669 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, July 20, 2000, pet. ref'd).
Using the same standard listed above and distinguishing fhis case from that one hetd that
handcuffing the defendant did place him in custody and thereby rendered his statements
inadmissible and required reversal.
E. STATEMENTS ABOUT DRUG USE INADMISSIBLE WTHOUT EXPERT
TESTIMONY
Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 285 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009, reh. denied).
The defendant objected tothe admission of the portion of the DWI videowhere he admitted taking
Valium and Xanax as irrelevant. (lt should be noted that the definition of intoxication listed in the
information in this case alleged only "alcohol" intoxication). ln reversing the case, the Court of
Criminal Appeals held that without expert testimony to provide the foundation required to admit
scientific evidence, the testimony regarding Appellanfb use of prescription medications was not
shown to be relevant to the rssue of his intoxication.
F. STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANT'S HUSBAND. NOT HEARSAY
Snokhous v. State,2010 WL 1930088 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010, no pet.) (Not designated for
publication).
Defendant's husband made the statement to officers during his wife's arrest for DWI that "whatever
you guys can do to keep her out of a DWI I would really appreciate it" was admissible as nonhearsay
as a presenf sense impression. (Concurring opinion)
XV. FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS
A. HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS
1. IS ADMISSIBLE
Quinnev v. State, 99 S.W.3d 853 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
Gullatt v. State, 74 S.W.3d 880 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.).
Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994).
55