### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 43 -C R

______________________________ J OHN RAYMON D L ANDI S, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 336th J udicial District Court

Fa nnin County , Texas Trial Court No. 22148

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON L ind e ll B ra df

or d B ro wn

die d a s a re su lt o f i nju

ri e s su sta ine d in a tw o-v e hic le a c c ide nt i n F ann in County sh or

tly be fo re Chr istma s 200 6. Th e oth e r v e hic le ' s d ri ve r, JohnRay

mon d L and is,

wa s subsequently

char g ed with intox ication manslaug hter. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.08 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). A F annin County jury found L andis g uilty

and re turned a

sent ence of

se ve nte e n y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt. L and is n owa pp e a ls, ra isi ngse ve ra l p oin ts o f e rr or . We ov e rr ule his c on te nti on s o f e rr or

and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt. I. Adm iss ion of t he Blo od Sa m ple I n o ne po int

of e rr or , L and is c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y adm it ti ng the l a bo rator y te st results of a blood sample draw n from him shortly afte r the a ccide nt in question. L andis' s theory of why the trial cour

t erre d rests on either

of two alter

n at i v es : (a ) that the re quirements of Sec tion 724.012(b) we re not met or (b) that "a proper chain of custody perta ining to the blood sample w as not provided prior to testimony reg ardingits a

naly sis." The exhibi ts at issue are State' s Ex hibit 16 (a toxic olo g y

re po rt fr om t he Te xas D e pa

rtme nt o f P ub lic Sa fe ty ' s ( DPS ) C ri me L a bo rator y in Austin) and S tate' s Ex hibit 13 (155 pag es of L andis' s medical re cords f rom Methodist Dallas Medica l Center). A. Se c ti on 7 24 .0 12 of t he Te xa s Tr ans por ta ti on C ode Gene rally , law enf

orce ment m ay

not take a spe cimen of a suspect' s blood without t hat person' s consent. T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE ANN . § 724.013 (V er n o n 1 9 99). Ther e ar e, howe ver,3

exceptions to thi s g ener al prohibition. One such e x cept i o n ar i ses when the suspect has be en involve d in a mo to r v e h ic le a c c id e n t in w h ic h an o th e r p e r s o n h a s d ie d o r mi g h t d ie

. More sp e c if ic a lly , o ur la w p ro vid e s, (a ) On e or

mor e sp e c ime ns of a pe rs on ' s br e a th o r b loo d ma y be take n if the per son is arre sted and at the reque st of a peace office r havingrea sonable g rounds to believe the pe rson:

(1 ) wh ile in to x icate d w a s o pe ra tin g a mot or ve hic le in a

pu bli c place , or a w ater cra ft; or (2 ) wa s i nv i o l at i o n

o f S ec t i o n1 0 6

. 0 4 1 , Al co h o l i c B ev er age Code. (b ) A p ea ce o ff

i ce r s h al l re qu i re t h e t ak i n g o f as p ec i m en o f t h e p er s o n 's breath or blood if:

(1) the officer arre sts the person for an of fense under Chapte r 49, Pe na l Co de , invo lvi ngthe op e ra tio n o f a mot or ve hic le or

a wate rc ra ft ; (2) the per son was the ope rator of a motor vehicle or

a waterc raf

t inv olv e d in

an a c c ide nt t

hat the off

ic e r r e a so na

bly be lie ve s o c c ur

re d a s a result of the of

fense ; (3) at the time of the arrest t he officer rea sonably believes that as a dir e c t r e su lt o f t

he a c c ide nt: (A) any

individual has died or will die; or (B ) an i n dividual other than the pe rson has suff ere d serious bodily

injury ; and (4) the per son ref

uses the off

icer ' s reque st to submi t to the taking o f a s p e c i m e nv o l u n t ar i l y. (c) The pe ace office r shall desig nate the ty pe of spe cimen to be take n. (d) I n this section, "se rious bodil y i n j ury " ha s the meaningassig ned by Section 1.07, Penal Code. T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE ANN . § 724.012 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The a ppellate r ecor d in this case shows L andis consente d to providing of fice rs with a blood sp e c ime n. Th e re fo re, th e S tat e did no t ha ve to p re se nt e vid e nc e to s ho w the of fi c e rs c ou ld

re a so na bly re ly on Se c tio n 7 24 .0 12 to take a

sp e c ime n o f L and is' s b loo d w ith ou t hi s c on se nt. L and is4

may not rely on Section 724.012 as a ba sis for contendingthat the trial cour t erre d in admitting the analy sis of the consensua l blood draw. B. Cha in o f Cus to dy L andis furthe r conte nds the trial court abused its discr etion by admitting, over

his objection, "the phy sical evide nce of the blood tes t and the lab results beca use the State fa iled to establish a chai n o f cus to dy

for th e bl oo d ev id ence. " A d e fe nd ant who a ff

ir mativ e ly state s, " No ob

je c tio n, " wh e n ev ide nc e is of fe re d w a ive s h is rig ht to complain on appea l that t h e ev i dence was e rrone ously admitted. Mo ragu e

z v . S tate , 701 S.W. 2d 90 2, 90 4 (Tex

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); Ma lon e v . S tate , 1 6 3 S. W. 3 d

7 8 5 , 7 9 4 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 05 , p e t. r e f' d) . Wh e n St a te ' s E xhibi t 13 wa s o ffered fo r a dmi ssi on , L and is stated he ha d "N o objection." L andis, there fore , waived his r ight to c omplain on appea l about the trial court' s decision to admit Ex hibit 13. The re cord shows L andis did not, at trial, chall en ge t h e S t ate's fa ilure to prove c hain of custody for State' s Ex hibit 16. I nstead, L andis' s trial objection to State' s Ex hibit 16 concer ned wh e the r t he la bo rator y re po rt tr a c kin g numbe rs c or

re sp on de d w iththe va

ri ou s o ff ic e rs ' te sti mon ie s. By failing to challeng e Exhibi t 16' s chain of custody at t rial, L andis ca nnot now raise this complaint

on a pp e a l. Se e Luc e ro v . S

tate , 2 46 S.W. 3d

86 , 9 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Pa rso n v . S tate , 193 S.W. 3d 11 6, 12 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 06 , p e t. r e f' d) ; se e als o T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a)( 1).We also note that L andis did not object to the ad m i s s i o n o f State' s Ex hibit 11, which 1 included the plastic ba g containing the marihua na at issue. 5 Additionally , the proprie ty of an exhibi t's chain of custody g oes to that exhibi t's w eig ht rather than its admissibi lity

. De Le on v . S tate , 50 5 S .W .2 d 2 88 , 2 89 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ingram v. Sta te , 2 13 S.W. 3d

51 5, 52 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 07 , n o p e t.)

. L and is c ann ot n owpr op e rl y re ly on his appellate obje ction to the chain of custody as a ba sis for contendingt he trial c ourt err ed by admitting the a

naly sis of the consensua l blood draw. We overr ule L andis' s challeng e to the t rial court's decision to admit the laboratory results of his blo od te st. 1 II. Adm iss ion of La bor at or y A nal ys is o f Dr ug P ar aphe r nal ia I n an oth e r ap pe llate iss ue , L and is c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt " e rr e d in a dmi tti ngthe la

b a na ly sis of the mari jua na and pa ra ph e rn a lia be c a us e a pr op e r c ha in o f c us tod

y was no t provid e d p ri or

to testimony reg ardingits a n al y s is." L andis' s appellate complaint conce rns State' s Ex hibits 16A throug h 20. At tr ia l, L and is ra ise d his c ha in of c us tod y c ha lle ng e wi th re sp e c t to the a dmi ssi on of the se exhibi ts. Thus, this i ssue was pres er v ed for a ppellate r eview. H oweve r, as noted a bove, the p r o p r i e t y o f

ane x h i b i t ' s c h a i no f c u s t o dy g o e s t o t h a te x h i b i t ' s w e i g h tr a t h e r t h ani t s a dm i s s i b i l i t y. DeLeon , 50 5 S .W .2 d at 28 9; Ingram , 213 S.W .3d at 521. The tria l court committed no err or by admitting these exhibi ts over L andis' s chain-of -custody challeng e.6

III. Evid entiary Suf

fi ciency F ina lly , L and is c on te nd s th e e vid e nc e is both leg a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt to s up po rt

his

c on vic tio n. L and is c on te nd s th a t " [e]v e n if the State ' s e vid e nc e of th e bl oo d in toxic a tio n le ve l is accep ted , t here is st il l n o co nn ect io n m ade b etw een t hat andth e acci den t. " I n a leg al suffic iency

revie w, we e x amine the evidenc e from the cour t below, as mea sured by the hy po the tic a lly

c or re c t jury c ha rg e , in t he li gh t mo st f

a vo ra ble to t he tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt. Gr ott i v . S tate , No. PD-134-07, 2008 Te x . Crim. App. L EXI S 761, at *15 (Tex . Crim. App. J une 25, 20 08 ) ( no t de sig nate d f

or pu bli c a tio n) ; Ma lik v . S

tate , 953 S.W .2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hy pothetically

cor rect jury

char g e sets for

th the applicable law, is authorized by the cha rg ing i n s t ru m en t , d o es n o tn ec es s ar i l y i n cr ea s e t h e S t at e's b u rd e n o f p r o o f o r r es t ri ct t h e p ro s ec u t i o n 's theories of

criminal liability , and adequately descr ibes the par ticular off ense f or which the acc used is being tried. Gr ott i , 2 00 8 T e x. Cr im. Ap p. L EX I S 76 1, a t *2 3; Ma lik, 953 S.W .2d at 240. A fa ctual suff

iciency revie w re quires us to assess all the evide nce a dduced at trial in a neutra l light. Gr ott i , 2 0 0 8 T ex . C ri m . Ap p . L E XIS 7 6 1 , at * 1 5 (c i t i n g Ro bert s v. S tate , 220 S.W .3d 521, 5 2 4 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ); an d re fe re n ci n g J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (Tex. Cr i m . Ap p. 2000)). We must then deter mine whether

the jury was ration all y

justified in finding the a ccuse d g uilty bey ond a rea sonable doubt. Id. (c i t i n g W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). " Evidence can be fac tually insufficient in one of

two way s: (1) whe n the evidenc e supporting the verdic t is so weak t h at the ver dict seems cle arly wrongand manife stly

unjust; and7

(2) whe n the supporting evidenc e is outweig hed by the g reat weig ht and pre p o n d er ance of the

con tr ary evi den ce s o a s t o r e nd er t he v erdi ct c lea rl y wro ng andman if

est ly un ju st ." Id. (citing Ro be rts , 2 20 S.W. 3d a t 52 4; W atson , 2 04 S.W. 3d

a t 41 4– 15 ; Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11; and

r e f e r en ci n g Cas til lo v . S

tate , 2 2 1 S. W. 3 d

6 8 9 , 6 9 3 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) )

. T o h o ld th a t t he evidenc e is fac tually

insufficient, we must be able to state objectively that the verdic t is a g ainst the g reat we i gh t and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Id. ; Ro be rts , 2 20 S.W. 3d a t 52 4; W

atson , 204 S.W .3d at 417. L ike a leg al suffic iency revie w, a f

actua l sufficienc y

revie w re q u i re s t h at the

ev i d en ce be measur ed under the fra mework of

the hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e. Id. a t *15; W oo le yv . S tate , No. PD-0861-07, 2008 Te x . Cr i m . App. L EXI S 762 (Tex. C rim. App. J une 25, 2008). I ntox ication m anslaug hter is a re sult-oriented off ense. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.08; c f. Pe re z v . S tate , 2 16 S.W. 3d

85 5, 85 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 2006 , p e t. r e f' d) (m ans la ug hte r i s result-orie nted offe nse). The statutory elements the State must prove ar e (1) the def endant; (2) on or about the date alleg ed in the indictment; ( 3) opera ted; (4) a motor vehicle, a ircra ft, wate rcr aft, or amusement ride ; (5) while intoxi cate d; and (6) by rea son o f that intox ication; (7) by acc ident or mistake; (8) c aused the death of an individual. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49 .0 8; se e als o Daniel v. Sta te , 577 S.W. 2d 23 1, 23 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. [Pan e l O p. ] 197 9) ; Ma rti ne z v . S tate , 883 S.W .2d 771, 77 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or

t Wor th 1 99 4, pe t. r e f' d) . T he ind ic tme nt a lle g e d L and is d id then and ther e oper ate a

motor vehicle in a public place while the said de fenda nt was intox icated by

not having the normal use of mental or phy sical fac ulties by rea son of8

the introduction of a c ombination of marijuana, a nd controlled s u b stance s into the bo dy , an d d i d b y r e a s o n f o r s u c h i n t o xi c a t i o n c a

u s e t h e d e a t h o f an o t h e r , n a me ly L indell Bra dfo rd Br o wn , by acc ident or mistake, to wit: by driving said motor v e h i c l e i n t o t h e p e r s o no f s a i d i n j u r e d p art y. There fore , the applica

ble hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e would, in this case, r equ i re p roof that (1 ) L and is; (2 ) o n o r abo ut Dec e mbe r 8 , 2 00 6; ( 3) op e ra te d; ( 4) a mot or ve hic le ; ( 5) wh ile int oxic a te d; a

nd (6 ) by re a so n of that into xicatio n; (7 ) by a c c ide nt or mis take ; ( 8) c a us e d th e de a th

o f B r o w n . W i t h t h e s e t h o u g h t s i n m i n d , w e tu r nt o a r e v i e w o f

t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d

t o t h e j u r y. J are d Ba ll, Kry stal Clark, and B rittany Hill each te stified that on t h e af ternoon of Dec ember

8, 2006, L andis ar ri ved at the house occupie d by Ba ll and Clark and a

ppear ed to be intox icated. Ba ll de scribed L andis' s speec h that day as being slurred. L andis also see med unsteady on his feet, a

fac t to which Clark also t estified. When asked by the prosec utor whethe r he thoug ht it was safe for L andis to drive on that day , Ba ll responded, " Ican' t say s o . " Hi l l o ffe red similar te sti mony , te lli ng the jur

y , " I tol d Kr

y sta l that sh e ne e de d to say so me thi ngto h im [L and is] b e c a us e he wa s -- he shouldn't have -- he could ba rely walk, much less drive." On cross-examination, none of the witnesse s remembe red se eing L andis consume a ny drug s or alcohol in their pr esenc e. Tammi e Ha y es was drivingher ve hicle on the e vening of De cembe r 8, 2006, on Hig hway 89 8 i n Fa nnin County . Whil e drivingon Hig hway 898, she wa s passed by

a white pickup tr

uck being driven in an e rratic manner . The truc k was weaving in a nd out of its lane and dr iving into the

on c omi nglane of tra ff

ic . H ay e s th e n d e c ide d to fo llo w t he wh ite pic ku

p tr uc k. Ev e ntu a lly , b oth Hay es and the driver of the whit e pickup truck stopped at the same location. The driver of the truc k9

e xite d, and

Ha y e s d e sc ri be d th e dr ive r a s " a bo y . . . h e wa s ju st k ind of , w e ll, wo bb lin g , ju st wobbling a

round is what y ou would say ." The driver eventua lly approa ched Hay es' s vehicle, which prompted her

to call 9-1-1. On cross-e x amination, Hay es admitted she did not see the driver of the white pickup truc k consume a lcohol or d rugs in her pr esenc e. On r edire ct, Hayes identified the driver of the white pickup truc k as beingthe Appellant. Grove r Russell came in c ontact with L andis shortly befor e the acc ident at i ssue i n this case. Acc ording to Russell's testimony , L andis appe are d intox icated at the time. Russe l l admitted on

c ro ss- e xami natio n th a t he ne ve r s aw L and is c on sume any a lc oh ol o r n arc oti c s o n th e date in question. W ad e L ower

y witnessed the a ccide nt that resulted in B rown' s death. He offe red the fo llo wi ngde sc ri pti on

of e ve nts : Iwas c oming along 78 g oing north towards my house. A truck c ome off of 121, g ot ri g ht i n f ro nt o f m e . We topp e d that hill, sta rt e d co min g do wn

and it j us t st art e d ju st veer ing of

f left into the oncoming traff ic and it hit a truc k that was g oing south, a nd the tr uc k th a t it hit sp un aro un d b e hin d me and

we nt o ff in a ditc h b e hin d me and hit a tr e e . A nd

the on e that vee re d off

, it sp un aro un d, the tir e s bro ke of f of it, we nt i n the ditch, and it eve ntually stopped rig ht directly

in front of my

road. Caroly n Malone a lso witnessed the ac cident at issue in this case . I mmediately following the

cra sh, Malone went to aid L andis. Malone then hear d L andis admit that he had be en drinkingear lier. L andis also admitted that he ha d smoked marihuana

. Parame dic Wade Jackson responde d to the scene of the a ccide nt

. He t estified that he believed that L andis had a dmitted to usi ng illega l drug s befor e the a ccide nt.10

Trooper s Cory

Hale a nd Eric Estes of the DP S—Highwa y Patrol responde d to the acc ident in question. During his investigation, Hale f ound marihuana

laying r ight outside the dr iver' s door

on the ro a dw ay ne xt to L and is' s tr uc k; H a le a lso fo un d a

mari hu ana

pip e ins ide L and is' s tr

uc k. Ha le also told the jury

that he conta cted a

fellow DPS trooper to mee t L andis at an a rea hospital with a blood draw kit bec ause, ba sed on what other witnesses told Hale and the drug use evidence he found in L and is' s v e hic le , H a le su sp e c te d th e a c c ide nt w a s a re su lt o f L and is 's dru g u se. O n c ro ssexamination, H a le a dmi tt e d h e f o u n d n o e v id e n c e in

L an d is ' s tr

u c k to s u g g e s t L an d is h a d

b e en smoking mar ihuana at the time of the ac cident. Estes testified that L andis "ha d slurred spe ech" and had admitted to smoking ma rihuana prior to the ac cident. Trooper Dexter Ba

rkley , also of the DPS—Highwa y Patrol Division, met L andis at Da llas Methodist Hos p it a l. B ar k le y te s ti f ie d th a t h e to ld

L an d is a t t

h e h o s p it a l t

h a t h e an d

o th e r p o lic e office rs had r eason to be lieve that drug s or alcohol wer e a contributing f actor in causingthe wre ck in whic h L and is wa s inv olv e d. B ark le y the n r e qu e ste d a blo od sampl e fr om L and is, wh ic h L and is provided followingBa

rkley ' s rea ding of

the re quired statutory

war ning a nd consent for

m. L isa Skinner works f

or Methodist Hea lth S y s t em s in Dallas and a naly zed the blood taken from L andis by

the ho s p i t al o n De cember 8, 2006. L andis' s blood test results were positive for be nzo dia zep ine s, c oc a ine , amph e tamin e s, and mari hu ana . T e st in g of L and is' s b loo d b y the DPS crime la boratory showed similar re s ults: L andis' s blood was positive for hig h amounts of methamphetamine, a

mphetamine, Alpra zolam, and coca ine.11

Dr. Jeffre y

Ba rnar d, the ch i ef medical e x aminer f or Da llas County

and the dire ctor of the Sou thw e ste rn

I ns tit ute of F or e ns ic Sc ie nc e s, pe rf

or me d th e a utopsy of B ro wn . D r. B arn ard

sa id Br own' s death wa s the result of the blunt f orce injuries and sever e blood loss (nearly half his blood volume) that B rown sustained in the a utomobile accide nt. We b e lie ve thi s e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt to pr ov e , b e y on d a

re a so na ble doubt, that L andis, on or about Dec ember 8, 2006, operated a motor vehicle while intox icated ( by

rea s o no f i n ges t i n g al co h o l , m ar i h u an a, o t h er co n t ro l l eds u

b s t an ce s , o r a n y

co mbination thereof) , and by rea son of that intox ication, by acc ident or mistake, ca

used the death of B rown. Ac cording ly , we

o v e r r u l e L an d i s ' s c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e e v i d e n t i ar y s u f f i c i e n c y. IV. Conclusion For the re asons stated, we o v er rule e ach of L andis' s appellate issues and af firm the trial

c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice

Date Submitted: November 12, 2008 Date D ecide d: November 13, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh