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

Mathieu v. State, 992 S.W.2d725 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"'Dist.] 1999, no pet.).An officer's requesthat suspect perform sobriety fesfs and directions on how to do the fesfs donot constitute interrogation, nor do queries concerning a suspecfb understanding of his rights.2. FSTREFUSALRafaelli v. State, 881 S.W.2 d 714 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd).Dawkins v. State. 822 S.W. 2d 668, 671 (Tex.App.-Waco, 1991, pet. ref'd)Barraza v. State, 733 S.W. 2d379 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, 1987, pet. granted) aff'd 790 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Crim.App.June 20, 1990)Jury is allowed to hear defendant's refusal to perform the field sobriety fesfs on the video. Nodistinction between allowing jury to hear about refusalfo do FSIs or BTRs.3. VIDEO PORTION AFTER AUDIO SUPPRESSEDFierro v. State, 969 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.).Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).So /ong as visual portions are true and correct, the video rs admissible without sound.4. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING BT REFUSALStrinoer v. State, 2003 Wt 21283181 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, June 5, 2003, pet. ref'd.) (Notdesignated for publication).Griffith v. State, 55 S.W.3d 598 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).Halbrook v. State, 31 S.W.3d 301 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref'd.).Ex Parte Jamail, 904 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1995, pet. ref'd).Refusal to take breath test coupled with and based upon requesf fo consult an attorney isadmissible.5. VIDEO PORTION ADMISSIBLEVEN IF AUDIO DID NOT RECORDAkins v. State,2007 WL 1847378 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2007, no pet.).Burke v. State, 930 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996 pet ref'd).Video rs admissible so long as predicate for introduction of photo is met.35