COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 02-10-00271-CR

 02-10-00272-CR

TIMOTHY ERNEST MAY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

I. Introduction

In three issues in cause number 02-10-00271-CR, and in two issues in 

cause number 02-10-00272-CR, Appellant Timothy Ernest May appeals his 

convictions for felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) and felony evading arrest

using a vehicle. We affirm.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

II. Factual and Procedural Background

On June 15, 2009, May drove off after rear-ending another vehicle and 

then, after being stopped for an unrelated incident, drove away instead of exiting 

the vehicle as requested by the officer who stopped him. The officer chased him, 

and his pursuit ended after May rolled his vehicle, a white Kia Sorento bearing 

Texas license plate number NGY 203.2

May was charged in cause number CR11479 (appellate cause number 02-

10-00271-CR) with committing felony DWI after having been previously convicted 

of DWI in 1992 and again in 1996, and he stipulated to his two prior DWI 

convictions. May was charged in cause number CR11362 (appellate cause 

number 02-10-00272-CR) with committing evading arrest using a vehicle. Both 

indictments contained an enhancement paragraph and a habitual count, and the 

State filed deadly weapon notices in both causes regarding the use of a ―white 

Kia Sorento bearing Texas license plate number NGY 203.‖ May pleaded not 

guilty to the charges, but the jury found May guilty of both charges. The jury also 

found in both causes that the white Kia Sorento was a deadly weapon used 

during the commission of the offenses. May pleaded true to the enhancement 

paragraph and habitual count in each case, and the jury found these allegations 

true and assessed May’s punishment at seventy-five years’ confinement in each 

 

2Because May challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we will address 

the facts in greater detail below.
3

cause. The trial court entered judgment on the verdicts, and these appeals

followed.

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his third issue in his brief in cause number 02-10-00271-CR, May 

complains that the evidence is not legally and factually sufficient to support his 

DWI conviction because the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that he was intoxicated at the time he was driving. In his 

second issue in his brief in cause number 02-10-00271-CR and his second issue 

in his brief in cause number 02-10-00272-CR, he complains that the evidence is 

legally and factually insufficient to show that he ―used his automobile as a deadly 

weapon‖ in, respectively, the DWI case and in the evading arrest case.

3

The court of criminal appeals has overruled Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 

126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), upon which the factual sufficiency standard of review 

is based, and decided ―that the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard is 

the only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the 

evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State 

is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.‖ Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 

 

3

In his brief in cause number 02-10-00272-CR—the appeal of his evading 

arrest conviction—May challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

deadly weapon finding but not any elements of the offense. And based on the 

evidence set out below, the jury could have found the elements required to 

support this conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 

§ 38.04 (West 2008) (stating that a person commits an offense if he intentionally 

flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or 

detain him).
4

893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Therefore, we will review May’s sufficiency

issues under Jackson.

A. Standard of Review

In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 

443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 

772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

B. Evidence

All of the testimony during the guilt-innocence phase of trial pertained to 

the events of June 15, 2009. Carlye Underwood testified that she, her two 

children, and a friend were stopped at a red light in front of the Majestic Liquor 

Store in Granbury when a white Kia Sorento hit her car. She pulled onto a 

nearby road, and the Kia drove past her. The Kia then returned by driving over 

the grass and jumping the curb before stopping perpendicular to her vehicle. 

The Kia’s driver, who Underwood identified as May, rolled down his window, and 

Underwood asked him for his insurance card. May stepped out of his vehicle

and never said a word to Underwood. Underwood said that when May got out of 

his vehicle, he stumbled and put his hand on her car to hold himself up; based on 
5

the way he walked and his driving, she concluded that he was drunk.

Underwood’s friend called 911.4

Underwood testified that she moved her vehicle into the Majestic parking 

lot and had expected May to do the same. Instead, May returned to his vehicle 

and then drove through the Majestic parking lot and back out again, jumping 

another curb. Underwood spoke with Granbury Police Officer Kevin Clapp when 

he arrived and gave him the Kia’s license plate number, NGY-203.

Nathan Jernigan saw the incident, which occurred around 5:00 p.m.,

stating,

I just happened to look up and saw—saw the accident happen, saw 

him slam into the back of the vehicle in front of him. At first, [I] didn’t 

really think anything of it, besides, ―Hey, there’s another accident.‖ 

And the next thing I know, the one—the vehicle who did the—who 

crashed into the rear of the other vehicle just kept going straight and 

took off, veered to the side of him towards the median in the road 

and just kept on driving.

Then Jernigan saw the same white car jump the median and stop on the road, 

right next to the liquor store. Jernigan continued, stating,

Well, when he came back, I just thought, ―Hey, he—he wised up, he 

came back.‖ And—and then I was fixing to go into the store, and he 

started rolling down his window, and he had rolled it down, and you 

see him, he was just in there, you could tell there was something 

wrong, because he—he—he wasn’t—to me, it just wasn’t—my 

opinion, he just wasn’t normal. He—he was just swaying back and 

forth in that vehicle.

 

4

The trial court admitted the 911 call and allowed the recording to be 

published to the jury.
6

Based on what he had seen, Jernigan believed the driver of the white vehicle 

was intoxicated. During cross-examination, Jernigan admitted that he did not 

know May, so he did not know what May looked like normally.

Department of Public Safety (DPS) State Trooper Nick Duecker testified 

that he was heading west on Old Granbury Road, a narrow two-lane road, when

he saw a white Kia Sorento heading east. The Kia edged into his side of the 

road and almost hit him head-on, but the Kia’s driver did not appear to notice the 

trooper’s vehicle. Trooper Duecker testified, ―[W]hen he went by, he didn’t even 

acknowledge . . . that I was there.‖ Trooper Duecker turned his vehicle around 

and activated his overhead lights, which turned on the vehicle’s dashboard 

camera.

Trooper Duecker testified that it took close to half a mile for the Kia to stop

after he activated his vehicle’s lights and then described his initial encounter with 

May:

As I walked up, the—the passenger side window was up, and—and I 

observed the driver fumbling around in his wallet, which I was 

assuming he was looking for his driver’s license. I—I knocked on 

the window, and he—he acted startled at first, acknowledged me, 

and ended up rolling down the window. . . . I explained to the—to

the driver why he had been stopped, and, again, he didn’t even 

acknowledge like he had even done anything wrong, like he didn’t 

know what I was talking about. I asked him for his driver’s license 

and proof of insurance on the car, and it—it took him—it took him a 

long time in order to get his driver’s license. I could see it sitting 

there. He—he went past it several times in his—in his wallet, like he 

didn’t exactly know what he was looking for.
7

Trooper Duecker stated that he asked May where he was going and that 

May said he was coming from Fort Worth and heading to his home at 3939 

Country Meadows. Trooper Duecker noticed that May had severely slurred 

speech, to the point that the trooper almost could not understand him, and that 

there was a strong chemical smell coming from inside May’s vehicle. May’s 

vehicle contained several cleaning supplies, and the trooper noted that May ―was 

acting almost like he was . . . high from those chemicals.‖ Trooper Duecker 

stated that he knew at that point that May was under the influence of something, 

because his behavior was consistent with intoxication, but he was not sure about 

the type of intoxicant.

When Trooper Duecker walked around to the front of the Kia, he noticed 

that the front end was smashed in. May told the trooper that he had hit a deer in 

Granbury thirty minutes before. While standing next to May’s driver side window, 

the trooper asked May if he had been drinking. May said, ―Yes,‖ and, when 

asked how much, May said that he had had one drink. The trooper said that at 

this point, he could smell alcohol on May’s breath.

Trooper Duecker returned to his vehicle, ran May’s driver’s license and 

license plates, and called for back-up. When Officer Kevin Clapp arrived, he told 

Trooper Duecker that he had been looking for the Kia because it had been 

involved in a crash in Granbury. After conferring with Officer Clapp, Trooper 

Duecker returned to May’s vehicle. When Trooper Duecker tried to get May out 

of the vehicle for sobriety tests, May gave him a blank stare and then slammed 
8

the Kia into drive and took off. Trooper Duecker ran back to his vehicle, turned

on his siren, and pursued May.

The trial court admitted Trooper Duecker’s dashboard camera DVD, which 

was published to the jury. The DVD clearly shows May careening back and forth 

across the road as he flees from the trooper, spinning out into a ditch before 

continuing to flee, dipping into ditches as he drives, slamming into a large trash 

can on the roadside, and, while driving on the wrong side of the road, just barely 

missing hitting a vehicle head-on. The DVD then shows May driving through a 

stop sign and continuing to swerve back and forth across the road and to drive 

on the wrong side of the road before finally spinning out and rolling his vehicle all 

the way over, crumpling the roof and shattering the windshield. As corroborated 

by the DVD, Trooper Duecker testified that during the pursuit, May drove on the 

wrong side of the road more than once and that May traveled in a head-on 

direction towards an oncoming vehicle, as he had previously done before the 

traffic stop.

Trooper Duecker testified that a vehicle is dangerous when not operated 

correctly because it weighs around 4,000 pounds and is capable of causing 

death or serious bodily injury, stating, ―[I]f it hits you, I mean, it’s a deadly 

weapon . . . [N]o other way to look at it.‖ Trooper Duecker agreed that the 

manner in which May used his vehicle was capable of causing death or serious 

bodily injury. He also testified that May was not in control of his vehicle when he 

rolled it and that May left the scene of the accident in an ambulance. Trooper 
9

Duecker testified that, based on his observations, he concluded that May was 

intoxicated.

On cross-examination, Trooper Duecker acknowledged that the reason 

May said he was coming from Fort Worth could have been that May did not want 

to tip him off about the earlier crash; that he did not know what May’s normal 

speech was like or whether May’s normal pattern of speaking was to slur his 

words; and that May did not pause and think about his answer when he told the 

trooper that the damage to the front of May’s vehicle was caused by hitting a

deer. The trooper agreed that May’s responses could be indicative of May’s 

normal mental capabilities. Trooper Duecker also replied, ―I guess it could be,‖ 

when asked if it were possible that some of the alcohol he smelled emitting from 

the vehicle was actually from the cleaning supplies in May’s car, and he admitted 

that he did not examine the chemicals or determine their alcohol concentrations.

The trooper also agreed that May’s fleeing when he tried to detain May could be 

either because of a ―bonehead decision‖ by May or because May was 

intoxicated.

Officer Clapp testified that he had finished investigating the hit-and-run 

when he heard Trooper Duecker call for assistance.5 Officer Clapp was less than 

a mile away from Trooper Duecker’s location, and he noticed when he arrived 

 

5Officer Clapp testified that it was just after 5:00 p.m. when he received the 

report of a hit-and-run near the Majestic liquor store. When he arrived at the 

scene, Underwood gave him the Kia’s license plate number, NGY 203.
10

that the license plate of the vehicle the trooper had stopped was the same as the 

one Underwood had given him. Officer Clapp testified that he pursued May 

when May fled from Trooper Duecker and that he had to drive around eighty-five 

miles per hour to keep up. May ―was all over the road,‖ swerving into ditches and 

into oncoming traffic. Officer Clapp testified that an automobile is something that 

can be a deadly weapon, capable of causing death and serious bodily injury, and 

that May used the Kia in such a manner that day.

After May wrecked his vehicle, Officer Clapp tried to help remove May from 

his vehicle by opening the door. When he did so, May fell to the ground and 

appeared to be snoring. Officer Clapp stated that May’s driving during the 

pursuit was not that of a normal person and that, based on the driving and May’s 

appearance after the pursuit ended, he concluded that May was intoxicated. 

However, he admitted that he did not smell alcohol on May or smell alcohol 

coming from the vehicle.

Jody Alvey, a Hood County paramedic, testified that she provided 

treatment to May after he rolled his vehicle. She and her partner transported 

May to a trauma center at Harris Methodist Hospital in Fort Worth around 6:16 

p.m. The trial court admitted May’s medical records from the hospital as State’s 

Exhibit 7. Alvey read from her notes, which were included in State’s Exhibit 7, as 

follows, ―Patient admitted to EMS crew that he had been drinking today[,] about 

six beers and some vodka.‖ In the patient history portion obtained from May 
11

regarding his alcohol use, the report reflects that May said that he drank a case 

or more per week of twelve-ounce beers.

The toxicology report on the sample collected at 7:04 p.m., around fortyfive minutes after May’s rollover, recited ―302‖ under ―Tests, alcohol ethyl.‖

Lindsay Hatfield, a DPS forensic scientist, testified that the ―302‖ represented 

302 milligrams of alcohol per deciliter of blood serum. Hatfield explained the 

conversion from milligrams per deciliter of serum to grams per 100 milliliters of 

whole blood and then converted May’s 302 milligrams per deciliter to a .25 blood 

alcohol concentration. Hatfield explained that to reach a .25 blood alcohol 

concentration, a 150-pound male would have to drink roughly twelve drinks in an 

hour.

Dustra Burrow, a Granbury bail bonding agent, testified that she wrote the 

bond for May on the evading arrest and felony DWI charges. The trial court took 

judicial notice that May failed to appear for trial on May 24, 2010, and that 

judgments nisi were entered that day. Burrow searched for May for around 

twenty-one days after his failure to appear, checking at his residence and any 

other location she thought he might be and calling his cell phone. Burrow agreed 

that she heard May make statements that indicated to her that he knew he was 

supposed to turn himself in during the three weeks following his failure to appear.

George Turner, an investigator for the Hood County District Attorney’s 

office, testified that he was asked to help locate May after May failed to appear 

for trial on May 24. He called May’s friends, May’s preacher, and May’s family 
12

members between May 24 and June 8. May called Turner on June 8, stating that 

he was turning himself in because he was tired of running from the police. 

Turner arranged to meet May at his Country Meadows residence. May indicated 

to Turner that he knew that the sheriff’s office had been looking for him. Turner 

transported May to jail.

C. Intoxication

In his third issue in cause number 02-10-00271-CR, May claims that the 

evidence is insufficient to convict him of DWI because no one found any beer 

bottles or cans or liquor bottles in his car, because no one gave him any sobriety 

tests, and because Officer Clapp testified that he did not smell alcohol on May.

6

May contends that the only evidence that he had been drinking was in the form of 

his admission, made during Trooper Duecker’s stop, that he had had one beer.

 

6May also complains that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of DWI 

because the individual who drew his blood did not testify and the chain of 

custody was not established between that individual and the DPS chemist who 

testified about the blood’s alcohol content. However, State’s Exhibit 7—the 

hospital records containing May’s blood test results—and Hatfield’s testimony 

regarding the conversion of the results to his blood alcohol concentration of .25 

were admitted without objection, even though the EMT’s testimony during crossexamination established that she did not perform the blood draw or the blood 

test. Further, May raised no objections with regard to this chain of custody or his 

right of confrontation during trial. Therefore, May has failed to preserve this 

portion of his complaint for our review. We also note that even if May had 

objected and his objection had been overruled, we would still consider this 

evidence because we consider all of the evidence admitted at trial, even 

improperly admitted evidence, when performing a sufficiency review. See 

Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485, 489–90 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004).
13

A person commits an offense if he is intoxicated while operating a motor 

vehicle in a public place. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West 2011). An 

offense under section 49.04 is a third degree felony if it is shown on the trial of 

the offense that the person has previously been convicted two times of any 

offense relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Id. 

§ 49.09(b)(2) (West 2011). May stipulated to his two prior DWI convictions, and 

the evidence recounted above affirmatively supports that he operated a motor 

vehicle in a public place.

―Intoxicated‖ is defined in the penal code as ―not having the normal use of 

mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol . . . or any 

other substance into the body‖ or as ―having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or 

more.‖ Id. § 49.01 (West 2011). Notwithstanding May’s .25 blood alcohol 

content level around two hours after he hit Underwood’s vehicle,7the testimony 

at trial reflected that Trooper Duecker smelled alcohol on May’s breath when he 

spoke with him during the traffic stop, and he noted that May had severely 

slurred speech. Further, the jury saw the trooper’s dashboard camera videotape 

showing May’s driving—weaving to and fro across a narrow two-lane road, 

driving on the wrong side of the road, and dipping in and out of ditches before 

rolling his vehicle. Jernigan and Underwood also testified about May’s driving 

and unusual behavior, and Alvey testified that May admitted to the EMS crew 

 

7

The trial court did not charge the jury on the blood alcohol content 

definition of intoxication.
14

that he had been drinking.8 Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, we conclude that the jury could have found that May was 

intoxicated by not having the normal use of his mental or physical faculties by 

reason of the introduction of alcohol into his body. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 

319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. We overrule May’s third 

issue in cause number 02-10-00271-CR.

D. Deadly Weapon

In his second issue in both cause number 02-10-00271-CR and in cause 

number 02-10-00272-CR, May argues that the evidence is legally and factually 

insufficient to prove that he used his automobile as a deadly weapon in either 

offense. In both of his appellate briefs, May focuses on what he calls the State’s 

failure to introduce evidence that his vehicle endangered another motorist when 

he rolled his vehicle and that he safely passed a car that was going in the 

opposite direction and passed some stopped cars without putting them in actual 

danger. He further argues that he directed no overt acts at anyone and that 

more than hypothetical danger must be shown. That is, May does not address 

his driving prior to the inception of his evading arrest actions, and he argues that 

the ―evidence was such that [he] only wanted to get away.‖

 

8Additionally, Burrow and Turner both testified that May failed to appear for 

his original trial date, and Turner testified that May told him he was turning 

himself in because he was tired of running from the police. See Clay v. State, 

240 S.W.3d 895, 905 n.11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (―Evidence of flight evinces a 

consciousness of guilt.‖).
15

A deadly weapon finding is authorized upon sufficient evidence that a 

defendant ―used or exhibited‖ a deadly weapon during the commission of or flight 

from a felony offense. Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). A deadly weapon is ―anything that in the manner of its use or intended 

use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.‖ Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 1.07(a)(17)(B) (West 2011). A motor vehicle may become a deadly weapon if 

the manner of its use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, and 

specific intent to use a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon is not required. 

Drichas, 175 S.W.3d at 798.

To determine whether the evidence supports a deadly weapon finding in 

cases involving motor vehicles, we conduct a two-part analysis by (1) evaluating 

the manner in which the defendant used the motor vehicle during the felony and 

(2) considering whether, during the felony, the motor vehicle was capable of 

causing death or serious bodily injury. Hilburn v. State, 312 S.W.3d 169, 177 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.) (citing Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250, 

255 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). We consider several factors in determining whether 

the defendant’s driving was reckless or dangerous: intoxication, speeding, 

disregard of traffic signs and signals, erratic driving, and failure to control the 

vehicle. Sierra, 280 S.W.3d at 255–56.

The evidence regarding how May drove began with testimony that May

―slammed‖ into the back of Underwood’s car, which was stopped at a red light. 

May then proceeded to drive over the grass and jump a curb. After he briefly 
16

exited his vehicle, he returned to his car and drove off, jumping another curb. 

Jernigan described May’s demeanor as not normal and said that May swayed 

back and forth inside his vehicle. Underwood testified that when May emerged 

from his vehicle, he stumbled and had to put his hand on her car to hold himself 

up—based on the way he walked, his demeanor, and his driving, she concluded 

that he was drunk. And Trooper Duecker testified that May nearly hit his vehicle 

head-on, which led the trooper to conduct a traffic stop. See Drichas, 175 

S.W.3d at 799 (―[A] deadly weapon finding is appropriate on a sufficient showing 

of actual danger, such as evidence that another motorist was on the highway at 

the same time and place as the defendant when the defendant drove in a 

dangerous manner.‖).

May then began evading Trooper Duecker, and Trooper Duecker’s 

dashboard camera video revealed that May nearly caused another head-on 

collision. Officer Clapp testified that he had to drive around eighty-five miles per 

hour on the narrow, two-lane road to keep up with May while Trooper Duecker 

pursued him. The video revealed that May ran a traffic sign, wove back and forth 

across the entire road, dipped into ditches, and drove on the wrong side of the 

road before he lost control of his vehicle and rolled it. Both officers testified that 

the manner in which May used his vehicle was capable of causing death or 

serious bodily injury.

We have already concluded above that the evidence is legally sufficient to

support the jury’s intoxication finding. See id. Viewed in the light most favorable 
17

to the prosecution, the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that 

May used his vehicle as a deadly weapon during the commission of the felony 

DWI and during the commission of the evading arrest offense.9 See Jackson, 

443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; see also 

Drichas, 175 S.W.3d at 798 (stating that the appellant’s manner of using his 

vehicle ―made it capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, particularly 

where appellant drove on the wrong side of the highway‖). We overrule May’s 

second issue in cause number 02-10-00271-CR and his second issue in cause 

number 02-10-00272-CR.

IV. Motion for Mistrial

In his first issue in cause number 02-10-00271-CR and his first issue in 

cause number 02-10-00272-CR, May argues that the trial court erred by denying 

his motion for mistrial by allowing his trial to proceed after he was handcuffed 

and escorted by officers past the open door of the jury room where the jury 

waited.

May cites Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),

cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1224 (1992), to support his argument. In Long, the court 

 

9During trial, May’s counsel’s only objection to the deadly weapon special 

instruction included in each cause was that the evidence was not sufficient in 

either cause to support it. He did not move to sever the two causes at trial. 

Instead, he focused during his opening statement on whether May’s ―bonehead 

decisions‖ rose to the level of reasonable doubt and stated that the case’s key 

issue was ―Has the government proved intoxication?‖ May does not raise any 

issue in either appeal regarding whether the offenses should be treated as two 

criminal episodes or a single criminal episode. 
18

of criminal appeals concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when, even 

though the defendant was on trial for committing three brutal murders, there was 

nothing in the record to support the trial court’s decision to keep him shackled 

during voir dire and trial. Id. at 263–64, 282–83. However, the court also 

concluded that the abuse of discretion was harmless because ―[w]hile appellant 

was shackled throughout his trial, even while testifying, he fail[ed] to direct our 

attention to any place in the record showing that the jury actually saw the 

shackles.‖ Id. at 283 (emphasis added). 

May was searched outside the jury’s presence after both parties made 

their opening statements. May’s counsel then requested permission to voir dire 

the bailiff:

I have some information I would like to put on the record before the 

jury returns. It’s possible—Mr. May was just now detained, placed in 

handcuffs and walked past the jury room while the jury was able to 

observe him, and it might prejudice my jury, Judge, if that, in fact, 

occurred. I visited with the bailiff and wasn’t much information 

shared with me to decide whether that has occurred or not, so if the 

Court would allow me to voir dire the bailiff in this case, with all due 

respect to him, I just need to answer—ask him a couple of 

questions. Would that be okay?

The trial court granted permission.

Harold Clemmons, the bailiff, testified that May was placed in handcuffs 

inside the courtroom and outside the jury’s presence by the detention officers

from the sheriff’s department and that the detention officers escorted May out of 

the courtroom. Clemmons also testified that when the jury had adjourned, he 

pointed them to the jury room. All twelve jurors went inside, but he did not seal 
19

them inside by shutting the jury room door. He explained, however, ―[T]hey could 

not see [May] pass by. I looked, I checked to make sure they could not see him. 

I never let them be—see him handcuffed in—the defendant.‖ Clemmons said 

that he stood across from the jury room and made sure that none of the jurors 

approached the door. The door was not shut before May returned to the 

courtroom, but May was not in handcuffs when he returned, escorted by the two

detention officers.

Clara Brooks, one of the detention officers, testified that Clemmons’s 

testimony was accurate and that she handcuffed May’s hands behind his back 

and then escorted him out. Brooks testified that she did not close the jury door 

as she went out. Kyle Pettijohn, the other detention officer, agreed that Brooks’s 

and Clemmons’s testimonies were accurate. Pettijohn testified that he was also 

behind May when he and Brooks escorted May out of the courtroom and that he 

did not shut the door to the jury room. May’s counsel then argued:

Your Honor, at this time I—I have no—no more witnesses to call 

other than the fact that we would urge the Court—we would move for 

a mistrial at this time, because my jury for Mr. May has been 

prejudiced by the fact that they observed him in handcuffs, with his 

arms to his rear, escorted by officers past the jury room door, and 

Judge, that does not in any way indicate a fair trial for Mr. May. That 

prejudice—prejudices all people’s opinion, or those 12 who saw him, 

and, Judge, I just don’t think this trial could go on.

The trial court denied his motion.
20

In contrast to Long, the trial court here did not require May to appear in 

restraints during voir dire and trial.10 Cf. Long, 823 S.W.2d at 282–83. Further, 

the record does not reveal any evidence that any juror actually saw May in 

handcuffs. See id. at 283; see also Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690, 697–98 

(Tex. Crim. App.) (―Nothing in the record indicates that the jury ever saw or heard 

or was otherwise aware that appellant was wearing shackles.‖), cert. denied, 540 

U.S. 1051 (2003); Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697, 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) 

(―Here, as in Long, appellant does not direct us to any evidence in the record that 

the jury actually observed the shackles.‖), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 927 (1993). 

Rather, Clemmons testified that he made sure that the jury did not see May in 

handcuffs, and no one on the jury testified. Cf. Clark, 717 S.W.2d at 918–19. 

Absent evidence that the jury actually became aware of May being temporarily in 

 

10May’s other citations to authority are also inapposite. See Marquez v. 

State, 725 S.W.2d 217, 227–30 (Tex. Crim. App.) (involving a punishment trial in 

which the defendant was shackled before the jury), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 

(1987), overruled on other grounds by Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875, 892 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Clark v. State, 717 S.W.2d 910, 918–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1986) (holding that even when several jurors testified that they saw appellant in 

handcuffs outside of the courtroom, there was no evidence that these jurors 

discussed this with the jurors who did not see him in handcuffs or that this 

influenced or affected the decisions on guilt or punishment of any of the jurors 

who saw him in handcuffs), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1059 (1987); Moore v. State, 

535 S.W.2d 357, 357–58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (stating that on two occasions, 

in full view of the jury, the sheriff escorted appellant into the courtroom in 

handcuffs, and on three other occasions, jurors saw appellant brought into the 

courtroom in handcuffs), overruled on other grounds by Sneed v. State, 670 

S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Gray v. State, 99 Tex. Crim. 305, 268 S.W. 

941, 949 (1924) (op. on reh’g) (noting that appellant was kept in handcuffs during 

trial).
21

handcuffs, we conclude that May was not harmed. See Long, 823 S.W.2d at 

283. Therefore, we overrule May’s first issue in both cause numbers.

V. Conclusion

Having overruled all of May’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 28, 2011