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

VIDEOA. PARTS OF PREDICATE CAN BE INFERREDRov v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Crim.App. [panel op.] 1980).Sims v. State,735 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd).That machine was operating properly can be inferred from evidence and testimony supportingpredicate can come from non-operator.B. NEW PREDICATE REPLACES EDWARDSLeos v. State, 883 S.W.2d 209 (Tex.Crim.App, 1994).Rule 901 of Rules of Criminal Evidence controls on issue of proper predicate for admission ofvideotapes.C. OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONSClark v. State ,728 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth , vacated and remanded on other grounds,753 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987), on remand 781 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.App.-FortWorth 1989,no pet.).Holland v. State , 622 S.W .2d 904 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1981, no pet.).No specra/ training on use of video equipment ls necessary if operator has baslc knowledge ofoperating procedures or instructions.D. SUPPRESSIBLE ITEMS1. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSELOpp v. State, 36 S.W.3d 158 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.] 2OOO, pet. ref'd).Grav v. State, 986 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999, no pet.).Lolr v. State, 982 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.] 1998, no pet.).Hardie v. State, 807 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) but see Griffith v. State, 55 S.W.3d 598(Tex.Crim.App. 2001).Jury should not have been allowed to hear defendant's invocation of his right to counsel onvideotape.33