## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07-430- CR R ODN E Y DI CKHE L M , J R . AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CRI M I NA LCO URT NO . 7 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- R o d n e yD i c kH e lm , J r . a p p e a lsf r o m h isc o n v ic t io n f o rd r iv in g w h ile i nt oxi ca t ed ( “DW I ”) . I n t hr eepoi nt s, heco m pl ai nst hatt he t r i alcourter r ed by over r ul i ng hi s obj ect i on t o a j ur y char ge i nst r uct i on, t hatt he t r i al courtabused i tsd i s c re ti o n b yo v e rru l i n g h i sm o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l c o m p la in in g o f th a t j u ry i n stru c ti o n , a n d th a t th e im p rop e r j u ry i n stru c ti o n h a rm e d h i m . T h e S tate agr ee s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by g i vi ng the i m pr ope rj ury i ns t r uct i on bu t a rg u e sth e e rro r w a sh a rm l e s s . W e a ffir m .2 F a c ts W h i l e w a itin g a t a sto p si g n , O ffi c e r I sm a e l E sp i n o za o f t h e F o rtW o rt h Pol i ce D epart m ento bserved A ppel l anttur n i n f r ont ofanot hert r uck, w hi ch had t o sl am on i t s brake s t o a vo i d a co l l i si on an d sk i d d ed . O f f i ce rEsp i no za c o n side red th e tu rn da n g e rou s. A p p e l l a n t d rov e p a st O ffi c e r Es p i n o za an d i n to t h e p a r k i n g l o to fa s t r i p t e a s e b a r . Of f i c e rE s p i n o z a t h e n m a d e a u - t u r n a nd f ol l ow ed A ppel l anti nt o t he l o t. H i s over head l i ghtsw er e noton. H e par ked beh i nd Appel l antan d s aw A ppe l l ant“ m ovi ng som et hi ng orpl ac i ng s om et hi ng orpossi bl y r et r i evi ng s om et hi ng” on hi s vehi cl e’ s f l oor boar d. A ppel l antexi t ed hi s t r uckan d w al ke d t ow ar d t he bar ’ s ent r anc e, s w ayi ng a nd no t acknow l edgi ng O f f i cerEspi noza’ s pr esence. O f f i cerEspi noza exi t ed hi s car , appr oached A ppel l ant , and d e tected an odo rofal coho l about hi s per son. H e pl aced A ppel l anti n t he back ofhi s squad c a r, i n the co n fi n e d s p a c e o f w h i c h the sm e l l o f al c o h o l o n A p p e l l a n t’ s b rea th
w asm uch s t r onge r . Appel l antad m i tt ed t hatheha d bee n dr i nki ng; hes ai d he had con sum ed “m aybe t w o” dr i nks. O f f i cerEspi noza f ou n d a 75 0- m i l l i l i t er bo t t l e o fw hi s k e y on t he f l oo ro fApp e l l a nt ’ st r uc k , a nd t heb ott l e w a s80% em pt y. A ppel l ant ’ s speech w as “a l i tt l e bi tsl ur r ed. ” O f f i ce rEs pi noz a w asnott r ai ned t o a dm i ni st erf i el d s obr i et y t es t s, s o he ca l l ed f orba ck up. Ser gea ntW el don N or m an r es ponde d t o t he ca l l . Appel l ant3

t ol d hi m “r i ght of f t he bat t hat he w asn’ t goi ng t o t ake any f i el d sobr i et y t est s” bef ore S e r geant N or m an had even spoken t o hi m . Ser geant N or m an t hen adm i ni st er ed t he H G N t es t , an d A pp el l antex hi bi t ed f ouroutofs i x c l uesof i nt oxi cat i on. A ppel l ant ’ s eyes w er e “a l i tt l e bl ood shot . ” Of f i c e rE s p i n o z a a r r e s t e d Ap p e l l a n tf o rd r i v i ng w hi l e i n t o x i c a t e d . He t r ans port ed A ppe l l antt o t he j ai l and gav e hi m t he D I C 24 w ar ni ng. Appel l ant re fu s e d to p ro v i d e a b re a th s p e c i m e n . A ppel l ant poi nt s out t hat t her e w er e no pol i ce vi deo cam er as i n eit her pat r ol ve hi cl e; t her ef or e, t he onl y e vi den ceoft he eve nt s l ea di ng up t o a nd i ncl udi ng t he ar r es ti s t he of f i ce r s’ t es t i m ony. Al so , a vi deo r ec or di ng of A ppe l l antan d hi s ac t i onsatt he ci t y j ai l w asad m i tt ed and publ i sh ed t o t he j ury. The t r i alcourti ns t r uct ed t he j ury, overA ppe l l ant ’ s obj ec t i on, t hat“ [ y] ou ar e i nst r uct ed t hatyou m a yco nsi dert he def endan t ’ s br eat h t estr ef usal as e v i d e n c e i n th i sc a s e .”T h e j u ryc o n v i c te d A p p e l l a n t, a n d th e tri a l c o u rt se nt enc ed hi m t o ni net y da ys ’ co nf i nem enti n t he Tar r ant C ount y Jai l an d a f i ne of $55 0, w i t h t he con f i nem ent port i on oft he se nt enc e p r oba t ed f ort w ent y- f our m onths. The t r i alco urt ’ s i ns t r uct i on w aser r or I n Hessv. S tate , t hi s cou rthe l d t hat i t w as er r orf ora t r i alco urtt o gi ve an i ns t r uct i on i den t i ca l t o t he onei n t hi s ca se . 22 4 S . W . 3 d 511 , 515 ( Tex.4

A pp. — FortW ort h 2 007 , pe t . r ef ’ d) . I n Ba rtle tt v. S tate , t he Texa s C ourtof C ri m i n a l A p p e a l s , c i ti n g o u r Hessopi ni on, r ec ent l y e xpl ai ned , A j udi ci al i nst r uct i on t hat si ngl es out a part i cul arpi ece ofevi dence, butdoe s nots erve oneoft he l ega l l y a ut hor i z ed pur posess etout a b o v e , ri sk s i m p i n g i n g u p o n t h e“i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e j u ry i n i ts r ol e as t r i eroft he f a c ts, a r ol e l ong r egar ded byTexan s as e s s e n t ia l t o t h e p r e s e rv a t io n o ft h e irlib e rt ie s .” E v e n a s e e m in g ly neu t r ali ns t r u c t i o n m ay con st i t ut e a n i m per m i ss i bl e c om m enton t he w ei ght oft he evi dence becau se such an i nst r uct i on si ngl es outt hat part i cul arpi ec e o fev i den cef ors pe ci al att ent i on. I n t he i ns t ant case, t he quest i on i s w het hert he t r i al court ’ s seem i ngl y n e ut r al exp l ana t i on oft he l aw w i t h r es pectto t he adm i ss i bi l i t y oft he r e f u s a l t o t a k e a b r e a t h t e s tc o n s t it u t e d s u c h a n im p e r m is s ib le c o m m e n t. 2 7 0 S .W .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 1

– 5 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (c i ta ti o n so m i tte d ). Th e Ba rtle ttcourtexpl ai ned t hatt her e ar e t hr ee si t uat i ons w hen a t r i al courtm ay pr oper l y com m enton a speci f i c i t em ofevi dence: Fi r st , t he t r i al courtm ay speci f i cal l y i nst r uctthe j ur y w hen t he l aw di r ect s i tt o at t ach a cert ai n degr ee ofw ei ght, oronl y a part i cul ar orl i m i t ed si gni f i cance, to a speci f i c category ori t em ofevi dence, [ su ch asac com pl i cet es t i m ony unde rart i cl e 38. 14 oft he cod e o f cr i m i nal pr ocedu r e orevi dence adm i tt ed f or a l i m i t ed pur pose und er ru l e 1 0 5 o f th e T e x a sR u l e so f E v i d e n c e ]. S e c o n d , th e L e g i s l a tu re h a s e x p res sly req u i red the tr i a l co u rt to c a l l p a rt i c u l a r atten ti o n to s p e c if ic e v id e n c e in t h e ju ryc h a r g e w h e n t h e la w s p e c if ic a lly i den t i f i esi tasa pr edi ca t e f ac t f r om w hi ch a j ury m ay pr es um e t he exi stenc e o fan ul t i m at e o rel em ent alf ac t . . . . U nde rs ec t i on 2 2 .0 5 (c ) [o f th eP e n a l C o d e , th e d e a d l y -c o n d u c t s ta tu te ], r ec kl es sn es s and danger , t w o s epa r at e e l em ent s oft he of f ens e o f d e a d lyc o n d u c t , m a ye a c h b e p r e s u m e d ifa p e r s o n k n o w in g ly poi nt s a f i r ear m atori n t he di r ect i on of a n ot her . Thi r d, t he t r i al c o u rtm a yin s t r u c tt h e ju ryw it h r e s p e c tt o e v id e n c e t h a tis a d m i ss i b l e co n ti n g e n t u p o n ce rt a i n p red i c a te fa c ts th a t i t i s u p to5

t he j ury t o dec i de. For exa m pl e, w hen t he l aw s pec i f i ca l l y a ss i gns t o j ur or s t he t as k o fde ci di ng w het herce rt ai n e vi den cem ay be consi der ed, as i tdoes under A rt i cl e 38 . 23 o fthe C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedu r e, i ti s ess ent i al thatj ur or s be t ol d exact l y w hatevi dence i s i n que st i on [ bef or e] t heyca n[ ] pa ssupon i t s adm i ss i bi l i t y. Id. a t 1 5 1 (c i ta ti o n sa n d q u o ta ti o n m a rk so m i tte d ). Th ese ar e t he onl y t hr ee ci r cum st ances underw hi ch t he l aw aut hor i zes si ngl i ng out part i cul ar evi den ce i n t he j ury i ns t r uct i on. I ns t r uct i ng t he j ury a bout t he r ef usal t o t ake a br eat h t est d o e s n o tf al l w i t hi n any of t hese t hr ee e x c e p t io n s . A st h e S t a t e c a n d id lyc o n c e d e s , t h e t r ia l c o u rtc l e a r lye r r e d in i n stru c ti n g the j u ry th a t i t co u l d co n side r A p p e ll a n t’ s re fu sa l to ta k e a b rea th t est . W e sust ai n A ppel l ant ’ s f i r sti ssue. Th e er r orw as har m l ess H avi ng deter m i ned t hatt her e w a s e rr o r i n t he char ge, w e now m ust d e c i d e i f s u fficie n t h a rm w a sc a u s e d b yth e e rro r to re q u i rea re v e rs a l . S ee Hu tchv. S tate , 922 S . W . 2d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0

– 71 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 199 6) . The st and ar d t o det er m i ne w het hersuf f i ci entha r m r es ul t ed f r om t he cha r gi ng e r r or to re q u i rere v e rs a l d e p e n d su p o n w h e th e r th e A p p e l l a n t o bj e c te d . S ee Ol ivas v. S tate , 2 02 S. W . 3d 137 , 1 44 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2 006 ) ( i nt er pr et i ng A l m anza v. S tate , 686 S . W . 2d 157 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1985 ) ( op. on r eh’ g) ) . W hen t he A ppel l anthas m ade a t i m el y obj ect i on at t r i al , as A ppel l ant has i n t hi s case, an appel l at e co urtw i l l sear ch onl y f or“som e har m . ” A b d n o r v. S tate , 871 S. W . 2d6

726 , 732 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1 994 ) . I n ot herw or ds , a pr ope r l y pr es erved er r or w i l l re q u i rere v e rs a l a sl o n g a sth e e rro r i sn o t h a rm l e s s . A l m anza , 686 S. W . 2d at171 . I n m ak i ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, “ t he ac t ualde gr eeofha r m m us tbe as sa yed i n l i ghtoft he ent i r e j ury c har ge, t he st at e o ft he evi den ce , i ncl udi ng t he contes t ed i ssues and w ei ght ofpr obati ve evi dence, t he ar gum entofcounsel and a ny ot he r r e l e va nt i nf or m a t i on r e ve a l e d by t he r e c or d of t he t r i al as a w hol e. ” Id. ; se e al soHutch, 9 2 2 S .W .2 d a t 1 7 1 ; Hess , 22 4 S . W . 3d at 516–1 7. A ft err evi ew i ng t he ent i r e j ury c har ge, t he st at e of t he evi den ce , an d t he a rg u m e n ts o f c o u n s e l , w e h o l d th a t th e i n s tru c ti o n i n th i s c a s e , a l b e i t i m p ro p e r, w asnotha r m f ul t o Appel l ant . Absen tt he i ns t r uct i on i n que st i on, t he cha r ge isw h o llyu n e x c e p t io n a l. Itc o n t a in sn o o t h e re r r o n e o u so rq u e s t io n a b le se ct i ons , an d t he app l i ca t i on pa r agr aph pr ope r l y i ns t r uct s t he j ury t o f i nd A ppel l antgui l t y i f“you f i nd f r om t he evi dence bey ond a r easonabl e doub tt hat i n Tar r antCount y, T exas , on o rab outt he 18t h da y ofSept em ber , 2006 , t he d e f e n d a n t , R o d n e yD ic kH e lm , J r ., d id t h e n a n d t h e r e o p e r a t e a m o t o rv e h ic le i n a publ i c pl ace w hi l e . . . i n to x i c at ed. ” S ee Te x. Pe na l Cod e Ann . § 49 . 04 ( V erno n 2003) . The cha r ge t hen s t at es“ [ u] nl es s you do s o f i nd be yond a r ea so nab l e d oubtori fyou ha ve a r ea so nab l e d oubtt her eof , you w i l l ac qui tt he d e f e n d a n ta n d s a yb yy o u rv e r d ic t , n o tg u ilt y .” T h e c h a r g e a ls o p r o p e r ly7

def i ned i nt oxi ca t i on t o m ea n “ notha vi ng t he nor m al us e o fone ’ s m ent alor physi cal f acul t i es by r eason oft he i nt r odu ct i on of al coho l i nt o t he bod y. ” See T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 4 9 .0 1 (2 )( A ). A s s u m i n g , a sw e m u s t, th a t th e j u ry fo l l o w e d t h e in s tru c ti o n so f th e tri a l c o u rt, Co l b urn v. S tate , 966 S. W . 2d 511, 520 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1998 ) , w e c ann ots ay t hatt he err on eou s i ns t r uct i on r edu ce d t he St at e’ s bur den ofpr oofi n a ny w ay. T h e w e i g h to f th e p ro b a ti v e e v i d e n c e m i l i ta te sa g a i n s t h a rm , to o . S ee A l m anza , 686 S . W . 2d at171. Appel l an tt ur ned i n f r ontofan onc om i ng vehi cl e, al m ostcausi ng a w r eck t hatw as avert ed onl y because t he ot her
v e h i c l e s l a m m e d o n it s b r a k e s . H i sb re a th s m e l l e d o f a l c o h o l , h i se y e sw e re bl ood shot , hi s speech w as sl ur r ed, and he sw ayed w hen he w al ked. O f f i cer E s p i n o z a s a w h im p l a c e s o m e th i n g o n th e fl o o r o f h i sv e h i c l e , w h i c h th e j u ry coul d have r easonabl y concl uded w a s t he m ost l y- em pt y w hi skey bot t l e. A ppel l antexhi bi t ed f ourcl ues ofi nt oxi cat i on on t he H G N t est , and he r ef used t o t a k e o t h e rf ie ld s o b r ie t yt e s t so rs u b m ita b r e a t h s a m p le . E v id e n c e f a v o r a b le t o A p p e lla n t ’s d e f e n s e ist h e v id e o m a d e a tt h e ja il, in w h ic h h e d o e sn o te x h ib it o b v io u ss ig n so fin t o x ic a t io n , t h o u g h h e d o e ss w a yb a c ka n d f o rt h . W h ile t h is i s not a “s l am - dunk , f al l i ng- dow n dr unk ” t ype of ca se , w e ca nnot sa y, gi ven t he
w ei g h t o f t he evi dence as a w hol e, t hatt he court ’ s i nst r uct i on har m ed A p p e l l a n t. See Hess , 224 S. W . 3d a t516.8

A d d i ti o n a l l y , o n c e th e tri a l c o urtad m i tte d te s ti m o n yre g a rd i n g A p p e l l a n t’s r ef us alt o t ak e t he br ea t h t es t , bot h part i esw er e f r eet o a r guet hatf ac tt o t he j u ry . S e eWesb roo kv. S tate , 2 9 S .W .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), cert. denied, 5 3 2 U .S . 9 4 4(2 0 0 1 ); Hess , 224 S . W . 3 d at 5 1 6 . Accor di ngl y, t he St at e a r gue d, “ D on’ tyou t hi nk i fhew as n’ ti nt oxi ca t ed, hew oul d ha ve [su b m i tted to a d d i ti o n a l tes ti n g ]?” A p p e l l a n t’ s c o u n se l p o i n ted o u t th a t a s u s p e c t d o e s n o t h a v e to s u b m i t to a b re a th te s t, b u t c o n c e d e d th a tt h e j u ry cou l d c ons i dert he f ac tt hathe r ef us ed t o subm i t . Ther ef or e, t he j ury di d not n e e d a n yj u d i c i a l i n s tru c ti o n to fo c u si tsa tte n t io n o n th e re fu s e d te s t. S ee Brown v. S tate , 1 2 2 S .W .3 d 7 9 4 , 8 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); Hess , 224 S . W . 3d at51 7. A l t hou gh t he S t at e r ef er r ed t o A ppel l ant ’ s r ef usal t hr ee t i m es dur i ng i t s cl os i ng , t he r ec or d de m ons t r at est hatt he pr os ec ut i on di d not em pha si z e t he cou rt ’ s i ns t r uct i on, f ocu s t he j ury’ s att ent i on on t hati ns t r uct i on, o r e x p l o i t th e i n s tru c ti o n b yp l a c i n g th e w e i g h t o f th e tri a l c o u rt b e h i n d i t. S ee Hess , 2 2 4 S .W . 3d at51 1. A ccor di ngl y, w e hol d t hatt he i nst r uct i on w as har m l ess undert he f act s of t hi s case, and w e over r ul e A ppel l ant ’ s t hi r d i ssue. W e al so over r ul e hi s second i ssue, i n w hi ch he ar gues t hatt he t r i al courter r ed by f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i m a n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s e r r o n e o u sch ar ge i ns t r uct i on.9 C onc l us i on H avi ng conc l ude d t hatt he t r i alcourter r ed by spe ci f i ca l l y i ns t r uct i ng t he j ury t h a ti tcoul d consi derA ppel l ant ’ s r ef usal t o a br eat h t estbutf urt her concl udi ng t hatt he er r orw as har m l ess undert he evi dence and ci r cum st ances o f t h i s c a se , w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. D A U PH I N O T, J. f i l ed a d i ss ent i ng op i ni on. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2009

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 07 -43 0- CR R ODN E Y DI CKHE L M , J R . AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CRI M I NA LCO URT NO . 7 OF T ARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### DI SS E NTI NG OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- Beca us e I bel i evet hatA ppe l l ants uf f er ed so m e h ar m f r om t he er r one ous j u ry i n stru c ti o n , I d i ss e n t. The m aj or i t y a cc ur at el y s et s outt he u nd er l yi ng f ac t s oft he ca sean d consci ent i ousl y anal yzes t he appl i cabl e l aw as appl i ed to t hose f act s. I m ust di sagr ee, how ever , w i t h t he m aj or i t y’ s i nt er pr et at i on of t hose f act s. U ndert he A l

m anzaanal ysi s, “[ i ] ft he er r ori n t he char ge w as t he subj ect o fa t im e lyo bje c t io n in t h e t r ia l c o u rt , t h e n re v e r s a l isre q u i r e d i ft h e e r r o ris1 ... A l m a nzav. S tate , 686 S . W . 2d 157, 1 71 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1984 ) ( op. o n re h ’g ).

2 ... Id. ; s e ea ls o O va lle v. S tate , 13 S. W . 3d 774, 786 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 ). 2 ‘ cal cul at ed t o i nj ur e t he r i ghtsofdef endan t , ’ w hi ch m eans no m or e t han t hat t her e m ustbe s o meh a rm t o t h e a c c u s e d f ro m th e e rro r.” 1 Bec aus e Appel l ant t i m el y obj ect ed t o t he char ge er r or , i n det er m i ni ng w het hersom e har m exi st s, th i s c o u rtm u st rev i e w the e n ti re j u ry ch a rge , th e ev i d e n c e , th e j u ry a rgu m e n t, a n d “a ny ot her r el evant i nf or m at i on r eveal ed by t he r ecor d of t he t r i al as a w h o l e .” 2 A l t hou gh i ti s t r ue t hatO f f i cerEspi noza sai d t ha t A ppel l antm ade an unl aw f ul t ur n, he al so t est i f i ed t hatw hen A ppel l antt ur ned l eft , t he ot hert r uck
w asa l i t t l e “l es s t han a bl ock ” aw ay. I ft he app r oac hi ng t r uckha d t o s ki d a nd cause i t s br akes t o scr eech, i tcoul d onl y be because i tw as appr oachi ng atan e x c e s s iv e s p e e d . U n d e r o r d in a ry c ir c u m s t a n c e s , th e r e isa m p le t im e t o t u r n in f r ontofa veh i cl e t hati s a l i t t l e “ l es s t han a bl ock ” aw ay. A d d it io n a lly , O f f ic e rE s p in o z a d id n o td e c id e t o p u ll A p p e lla n to v e ru n t il he saw A ppel l antpul l i nt o t he par ki ng l otofa st r i p c l u b . E v e n t hen, O f f i cer Es pi noz a d i d nott ur n on hi s ove r hea d l i ght s, an d, i n f ac t , hedi d notdo t he t hi ngsan of f i ce rnor m al l y do esw hen gi vi ng a t i ck et , nordi d hegi ve A ppe l l ant a t ic k e t . T h e o f f ic e rin s t e a d p la c e d A p p e lla n tin t h e c a g e in t h e b a c ko fh is3 ... A r i zonav. Gant, 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 7 1 0 , 1 7 1 6 (2 0 0 9 ). 3 pol i ce uni t . A l t hou gh O f f i cerEspi noza cl ai m ed t hath e saw A ppel l antsw ay as he w al ke d, t her e w asno sw ay evi den t i n t he vi deo t ak en att he pol i ces t at i on r oug hl y an hou raft ert he ar r est . A l t hou gh th e o ffi cersai d t hathe sm el l ed al coh ol abo ut A ppe l l ant ’ s per so n, i t w as not unt i l he had pl ac ed A ppe l l ant i n t he u n i t th a t h e w a sa b l e t o d e te rm i n e th a t th eo d o r o f a l c o h o l w a s“ a l o t s tro n g e r.” W i t hou tadvi si ng A ppel l a n t ofany oft he r equi r ed w ar ni ngs, t he of f i cer beg an t o que st i on hi m . L ea vi ng A ppe l l anti n t he bac k s ea toft he uni t , f r om w hi ch A ppel l antcoul d n o texi t , t he of f i cersear ched A ppel l ant ’ s t r uck, w hi ch
w as l aw f ul l y par ked i n t he par ki ng l ot . I t w as onl y t hen t hatt he of f i cerdeci ded th a t A p p e l l a n t’ss p e e c h w a s“ a l i ttle b i t s l u rre d .” Ther e w asno i ndi ca t i on t hatt he of f i cerw as conce r ned f orhi s sa f et y. R at her , h e w as sear chi ng f orev i dence. A s t he Gan t cou rtpoi nt ed out , a per so n se cur ed i n t he bac k se at of a pol i ce uni tca nnotr ea ch anyw ea pon i n hi s ow n veh i cl e. An of f i ce r , t her ef or e, i s notj us t i f i ed i n s ea r chi ng a n e m pt y ve hi cl e o n t he bas i s oft he of f i ce r ’ s sa f et y. 3 A t n o ti m e w a sA p p e l l a n t a l l o w e d to re tu rn t o hi s t r uck. A p p e l l a n t w a s s e i z e d a n d p u t i n to th e c a g e o f th e p o l i c e u n i t, w i th d o o rs t hatw oul d not ope n f r om t he i ns i de, bef or e t he of f i ce r det ec t ed a st r ong o dor ofal coh ol , be f or e he l ea r ned t hatA ppe l l antha d ha d t w o dr i nks , an d be f or e h e4 ... Edwards v. A r i zona, 451 U. S. 477, 4 84 –8 5, 101 S. Ct . 1880 , 1 8 8 4

– 8 5 (1 9 8 1 ). 4 u n la w f u llys e a r c h e d A p p e lla n t ’s t r u c ka n d f o u n d a lc o h o l. T h e r e w a sn o f ie ld so br i et y t es t . Nei t herof f i ce rhad a f unc t i oni ng vi deo cam er a i n hi s uni t . The onl y e vi den ceofA pp el l an t ’ s con duc tatt he sc eneoft he ar r es tw ast he t est i m ony o fthe po l i ce o f f i cer s. O t herthan O f f i cerEspi noza’ s t est i m ony that A ppe l l antt ur ned i m pr ope r l y, t her e w asno e vi den ceofi m pai r ed dr i vi ng. A ft er O f f i cerN or m an ar r i ved, he per f or m ed an H G N t estt hatshow ed s o m e n y s ta g m u s , w h i c h N o rm a n c h a ra c te ri z e d a s“ c l u e so f i n to x i c a ti o n .” A ppe l l ant ’ s eye s w er e al so “a l i tt l e bl oods hot . ” A ppe l l antdi d notpe r f or m an y ot herf i el d sobr i et y t est s. A l t hough t her e i s no v i su alr ec or d ofA ppe l l ant ’ s dem ea noratt he sc ene o ft h e a r r e s t , t h e r e i sa DV D o fh i sd e m e a n o ri n t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . T h e DV D r eve al s t hatA ppe l l ant ’ s sp ee ch w asnots l ur r ed, h e d i d nots w ay w hen he
w al ked, he w as st eady on hi s f eet , he w as abl e t o f ol l ow t he w r i tt en and oral
w ar ni ngs , and he r epe at edl y and cl ea r l y st at ed t hathew oul d nots ubm i tt o a ny t es t i ng un t i l hi s att or neyar r i ved . H e r epe at edl y r equ es t ed t hat hi s att or neybe p r e s e n t . O n c e a s u s p e c th a sin v o k e d h isF ift h A m e n d m e n trig h tt o c o u n s e l, pol i ce i nt er r ogati on m ustcease unt i l coun sel has been pr ovi ded ort he suspect hi m sel fr ei ni t i at es a di al ogu e. 4Y e t t h e o ff ic e rs d i d n o t sto p the i r attem p ts to5 ... See i d. ; se e al

so U. S . Co n s t . a me n d V.

5 que st i on Appel l antan d c ont i nue d t o a skhi m t o per f or m f i el d s obr i et y t es t s and t o subm i ta br eat h sam pl e. I know ofn o r ul e ofl aw t hatexcept s D W I of f enses f r om t he m andate oft he Fi ft h A m endm entto th e C onst i t ut i on of t he U ni t ed St at esan d Edwards v. A r i zona. 5 The j ury, t hen , w aspr es ent ed w i t h t he f r ui to fan unl aw f ul s ea r ch, t he f r u i to fu n l a w f u l q u e s t i o n i n g , n o o bj e c t i v e e v i d e n c e i n t h e f o r m o fo n - sc ene vi deos, an H G N t est , a vi deo t aken att he pol i ce st at i on t hati ndi cat ed t hat A p p e l l a n t h a d th e n o rm a l u s e o fh i sm e n ta l a n d p h y s i c a l fa c u l ti e s , a n d a j u ry i n s tru c ti o n t h a ts i n g l e d o u t th e b re a th -te s t re fu s a l a se v i d e n c e th a t th e j u ry c o u l d c o n s i d e r. I n f i nal ar gum ent , t he pr os ec ut or s em pha si z ed A ppe l l ant ’ s r ef us aloft he te s ts a t th e ti m e o f a rre s t. A t o n e p o i n t, th e p ro s e c u to r s a i d , A nd he , ag ai n, r ef us esev eryt hi ng. And i fyou al so not i ceon t he t ape , i n t h e m i d d l e o f n o w h e r e , h e s a y s , “ Ok a y , I ’ m g o o d. ” A nd t he n he ’ so f f e r e d a b r e a t h t e s t , a nd h e s a ysNo. He r ef uses eve ryt hi ng. A nd a gai n, H e r ef us ed eve ryt hi ng. Don’ tyou t hi nk i f he w as n’ ti nt oxi ca t ed, he w oul d ha ve dones om et hi ng? N o, hedi d a bs ol ut el y no t hi ng a nd th e d e fen se co u n se l w a n ts to fa u l t u s fo r th a t an d tel l u s th a t w e don ’ thave enou gh evi dence becau se t he def endan tr ef used e v e ry th i n g .6 ... Mo ff v. S tate , 1 3 1 S .W .3 d 4 8 5 , 4 8 9

– 9 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 7 ... S ee A l

m anza , 6 8 6 S .W .2 d a t 1 7 1 ; s e eals o O va lle , 13 S . W . 3d a t786. 6 A nd yet agai n, “H e r ef uses everyt hi ng. A nd w hat does he say? M y at t or ney t ol d m e nott o do any t hi ng un l ess he w as her e. ” In d e t e r m in in g t h a tt h e c h a r g e e r r o rw a sh a r m le s s , t h e m ajo r it yr e lie s , in part , on i m pr ope r l y adm i t t ed evi den ce . Adm i tt edl y, de f ens e c ouns ell odge d not a s i ngl e o bj ec t i on du r i ng t r i al , ex ce ptf ort he obj ec t i on t o t he j ury i ns t r uct i on. W hi l e i ti s pr ope rt o r el y on i m pr ope r l y a dm i tt ed evi den cei n co nduc t i ng a suf f i ci ency r evi ew , 6itisn o tp r o p e rt o r e lyo n im p r o p e r lya d m it t e d e v id e n c e in det er m i ni ng t hatt he evi dence of gui l tw as of such m agni t ude t hatt he degr ee ofha r m ca us ed by t he i m pr ope rj ury i ns t r uct i on w asout w ei ghe d byt he qua nt um oft he evi den ceofgui l t . I f t hat w er e t he st and ar d, cum ul at i ve er r or cou l d out w ei gh t he har m ca us ed by c har ge err or , r end er i ng t he cha r ge er r or har m l es s i n c om par i so n t o t he ot herer r ori n t he ca se . W het hert he cha r ge er r or i s har m l ess r el at i ve t o t he ot her er r or i n t he case i s nott he st andar d f orr ever sal b a s e d o n j u ryc h a rg e e rro r. 7 T h e tri a l c o u rt’si n s tru c ti o n s i n g l i n g o u t th e e v i d e n c e o f A p p e l l a n t’s r ef us alt o s ubm i tt o a br ea t h t es tw asan i m pr ope rco m m enton t he w ei ghtof t hatev i den ce . The pr os ec ut or ’ s ar gum entm agn i f i ed t he i nj ury t hatA ppe l l ant s u ffe re d a sa re s u l t o f t h e t ri a l c o u rt’se rro r. A d d i ti o n a l l y , b o th th e j u ry7

in s t r u c t io n a n d t h e S t a t e ’s a r g u m e n tim p lic a t e A p p e ll a n t ’s in v o c a t io n o fh is r i ght t o coun sel . A ppel l ant ’ s r ef usal w as condi t i oned on hi s att or ney’ s absence and hi s r el i anc e o n hi s att or ney ’ s i ns t r uct i on s. H e voi ce d t hi s exp l ana t i on r epe at edl y on t he vi deo . The evi den cew asatbestequi voc alon t he l ega l i t y of t he st op, t he l egal i t y oft he sei zur e , a n d A ppel l ant ’ s gui l toft he of f ense. A p p e lla n tt h e r e f o r e s u f f e r e d s o m e h a r m f r o m t h e im p r o p e rju ryc h a r g e . T h is c o u rt s h o u l d th e re fo re s u s ta i n A p p e l l a n t’ss e c o n d i s s u e , re v e rs e th e tri a l c o u rt’s j udg m ent , and r em and t he case t o t he t r i al court . Because t he m aj or i t y does n o t, I m u st res p e c tful l yd i ss e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2009