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

4. JUROR'S ABILITY TO CONSIDER FULL RANGE OF PUNISHMENTGlauser v. State, 66 S.W.3d 307 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist] 2000, pdr ref'd).This was an lntoxication Manslaughter where the trial court properly denied the defense attorney'schallenge for cause on jurors who could not consider probation under the specific facts of the casebeing tried that went beyond the elements of the offense. The Court cited the standard set out inSadler v. State. 977 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) which said that a prospective juror is notchallengeable for cause because he or she will use factsto determine punishment. A prospectivejuror is not challengeable for cause based on inability to consider the full range of punishmenf soIong as he or she can consider the full range of punishment for the offense as defined by law. Theproper question to determine bias againstthe law regarding punishment is "Whether in a properintoxication manslaughter case as defined by statute, where the facts justify it, the venireperson could fully and fairly consider the entire range of punishment, including theminimum and maximum."III.DWI ROADBLOCKSA. ARE ILLEGALHolt v. State, 887 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994).Held that state wide ptan setting out guidelines is neede d to make use of roadblock constitutional.Untilthat time, DWI roadblocks are illegal.B. AVOIDING ROADBLOCK CAN PROVIDE BASIS FOR STOPJohnson v. State, 833 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd).Here officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the suspecf, and that reasonable susprbrbn was notaffected by the presence of the roadblock.