### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 638 -CR

Da r r e n Jo hnso n , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-07 -20 7006 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES F . BAI RD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y c on vic te d D arr e n Joh ns on of the thi rd -d e g re e fe lony of fe ns e of dr ivi ngwh ile intox icated. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 49.04(a) (West 2003), § 49.09(b) ( West S upp. 2008). Punishm ent was a ssessed at six y ear s’ imprisonment. I n a si ng le poi nt of error, Johnson challeng es the fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g his c onvic tio n. We w ill a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND The jury hear d evidenc e that, duringthe ea rly morning hours of Nove mber 22, 2007, Offic er Rica

rdo Me d ra n o o f the Austin Poli ce D epar tment’s DWI Enforc ement Unit noticed a vehicle tr avelingat a hig h rate of spee d on South C ong ress Aven u e. M ed ra no testified that he chec ked his rada

r and de termined that the ve hicle wa s g oing 61 miles per hour in a 40 miles-per -hour zone. Medrano initiated a tr af fi c stop. Acc ording to Medrano, the driver of the vehicle , later i d en t i fi edas J o h n s o n , “h ads o m e d i ff i cu lty loca t i n g h i s dri v er ’s l i ce n s e” an d “w as s tu mb l i n g t h ro u ghMe dr ano te sti fi e d that the Rom be rg ba lanc e te st wa s no t a sta nd ard ize d f

ie ld s ob ri e ty

te st, 1 but was nonethe less “a te st that Ig ive eve ry one.” 2 the wa lle t tr

y ingto f ind it. ” Me dr ano a lso re c a lle d tha t, wh ile ta lki ng to Johns on , he “ c ou ld s me ll a strongodor of a lcoholic beve rag e emitting f rom his breath.” Medra

no testified that J ohnson’s ey es we re “ bloodshot and g lassy ,” and h i s speec h was “ slurred in c onversation.” Medra no asked J ohnson how much he ha d to drink, to wh i ch J ohnson responde d, acc ording to Medrano, “ that he
wa s c omi ngfr om t

he do wn town a

nd that he on ly ha d one be e r. ” Af te r Johns on

e xite d h is v e hic le and wa lked towar d him, Medra no noticed that J ohnson “swa y ed from side to side.” Medra no then asked Johnson more questions, including what and whe n he had be en drinking . Medra no testified that J ohnson told him that h e h ad co n s umed only twelve ounc es of Shiner B ock, and that he had started dr inking at 11:00 p.m. and stopped drinking at 11:15 p.m. Medra no explained that if what J ohnson was telli ng him was true, the odor of alcohol that he observed shoul d have been f aint, not str on g , b y the tim e the tr a ff

ic sto p o c c ur

re d at a pp ro xima te ly

1:3 0 a .m. Medra no had J ohnson perf

orm the three standardized fie ld sobriety tests—the HGN, the wa lk-a

nd -t ur n, and the on e -l e g -s tand

—a nd an a dd iti on a l te st, the Rom be rgba lanc e te st. On 1 t h e HG N t est, which foc uses on the subjec t’s ey e movements, Medr ano testified that he observe d

“ s i x c l u e s ” s u g g e s t i n g i n t o x i c a t i o n , t h e h i g h e s t nu mb e r o f c l u e s t h a tc anb e o b s e r

v e d
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, Medra no noticed that J ohnson “kept on moving his hea d” and “ sway ed ver y obviously ” while taking the test. On the wa lk-and-tur n test, M ed rano testified that J ohnson exhi bited four out of e ight possible clues, including that he “lost balanc e during inst ructions” and “fa iled to touch heel- to-toe.” On the one- leg -stand test, Medr ano testified that Johnson ex hibited thr ee out of four possible clue s3

sug g esting intox ication, althoug h he did not spe cify what those clues wer e. Finally , on the Romberg balanc e test, Medra

no testified that J ohnson exhibi ted a “one- to two- inch sway” both “front to bac k”
and “ sid e to s ide ,” and

that John so n e sti mate d 3 0 s e c on ds a s 3 3 s e c on ds
. A vi deotape rec ording of t he traffic stop was a dmitted into evidence a nd play ed for the jury . After

the re cordingwas play ed, Medr ano testified: Q: Offic er Medra

no, a few follow-up questions. I s it f air to say

t h at t he defe ndant was not stag g eringor fa lling down on the vide o? A: Oh , y e s, ma ’a

m. I ’l l be the fi rs t on e to t e ll you , y e s, ma ’a m. Q: I s it fair to say

that the def

enda nt did not look, quot e unquote, dr op-dea d drunk? A: I ’l l be the fi rs t on e to t e ll you that, ye s, ma ’a

m. Q: And b ased on y our trainingand experienc e, does a person have to be stag g eringor fa lling down to be intoxicated? A: No ma’a

m. That’s a misn o m er that people—whe n they see intoxi cate d individuals they

think e x actly what y ou said, but, no, ma’am. Ag ain, I ’ll be the fi rs t on e to t e ll you , y ou we re no t go ing to se e it a nd y ou c ann ot s e e that. Q: Okay
. Ba sed on y our t raining and ex perie nce, Office r, do some per sons have a hig he r a lc oh ol t ole ra

nc e tha n o the rs ? A: Yes, ma’ am, some do.
After completing the field sobrie ty tests, Me d ra no place d J ohnson under a rre st for driving while intox icated. Me drano the n asked Johnso n fo r a b re ath s ample. Medr ano testified that J ohnson ref

used. After transporting J ohnson to the jail, Me drano obtained a se arc h war rant for
a b l o o d s am p le. A blood sample wa s drawn by a nurse and ana ly

zed by Debr a Stevens, a

senior4

for e n s ic s c ie n ti s t w it

h th e A u s ti n Po li c e D e p artm e n t. St e v e n s te s te d th e s a mp le to d e termine the g rams of ethyl a lcohol per 100 milli liters of blood a nd obtained four

results—.1761, .1766, .1702, and .1698—all excee ding the leg al limit of .08 gra ms per 100 millili ters. S tevens testified that sh e too k th e low e st o f t

he fo ur re su lts and

re po rt e d Joh ns on ’s a lc oh ol c on c e ntr a tio n at .1 6 g ra ms pe r 1 00 mil lil ite rs .

Ba s ed o n t he test re sults, S tevens e stimated that, if J ohnson had stopped drinking at 11:15 p.m., his alcohol concentration by the t ime of t he traffic stop would have been “about a .20.” On cr oss, Stevens estimated that, if Johns on had stopped drinking at 1:15 a.m., about fiftee n minutes be fo re the sto p, a lc oh ol c ou ld s til l ha ve be e n e nte ri nghis sy ste m at th e tim e of the sto p, wh ic h w ou ld have ma de his a lc oh ol co nc e ntr a tio n low e r, “ pe rh a ps a s low a s a .18, .1 9. ” I n re sp on se to d e fe ns e counsel’s inquiry

that “we basica lly

don’t know for sure how much Darren J ohnson had to drink that night; is that corr ect? ,” Stevens re plied,
Idis a g re e wi th you . We kn owwh a t hi s a lc oh ol c on c e ntr a tio n wa s. I t’ s pre tty e a sy to estimate based upon the amount of alc ohol that was dete cted in his sy stem the minimum amount of alc ohol that he dra nk that night. To know the total amount that he dra nk would probably

be a g uess, but we c an make an estimation of the minimum a mou nt.
Duri ngre dir e c t, t

he State e lic ite d th e fo llo wi nga dd iti on a l te sti mony on thi s p oin t: Q: Ms. Stevens, using your estim at i o n at .19 to a .2, base d upon stopping the dr ink inga t 11 :15 , c ou ld o ne tw e lve -o un c e be e r g e t y ou to t hat? A: Ab so lut e ly

no t. Q: Using the lower ed standa rd that we stopped the drinking at 1: 15, could one beer g et y ou to a .18, .19?J ohnson does not contest the lega l sufficie ncy of the e vidence . The c ourt of cr iminal 2 a pp e a ls h a s re c e ntl y e xpla ine d that, “unli ke a le g a l su ff ic ie nc y re vie w, wh ic h is a

fe de ra l du e pr oc e ss require ment, a factual sufficiency revie w is a cr eatur e of state law.” Las te r v . S tate , 275 S.W .3d 512, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
. There fore , “[o] n direc t appea l, a cour t must begin its fac tual sufficie ncy revie w with the assumption that the evidenc e is le g ally sufficie n t u n d er Jack son [ v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307 (1979)].” Id
. 5 A : N o tf

o r t h e s i z e i n d i v i d

u a l t h a tw e ’ r e t a l k i n g a

b o u t , n o , n o w ay. Q: Ok ay . D oe s c ha

ng ingthe tim e that he sto pp e d d ri nk ing , s ay , if

we c ha ng e it fr om 1 1:1 5 an d we us e d a numbe r 1 :15 , d oe s th a t c ha ng e y our o pin ion

a t a ll as to whethe r or not he was intox icated at, say , 1:30 a t the time of the stop? A: No. He’ s about two-and- a-ha lf times th e l ega l limi t. He ce rtainly was intox icated.
Af te r S te ve ns te sti fi e d, the State re ste d. Th e on ly wi tne ss t o te sti fy

fo r t he de fe ns e was Jeff Mar cum, the custodian of medical records for

the City of De l Valle. Mar cum testified that J ohnson suffer ed a ba ck injury at some point in November 2007, the m o n t h J o h n son was
arr ested, a

nd rec eived treatment for the injury in Dece mber 2007. How ever , this evidence was not further develope d. The jury found Johns on g uilty

of committing the of

fense of drivin g

wh il e intox icated, and Johnson was subsequently sentenc ed to six y ear s’ imprisonment. This appeal f ollowed.
AN AL YSI S I n his sole point of er ro r, J ohnson asserts that the e vidence is factua lly insufficient to s up po rt

the jur y ’s fi nd ingof

g uil t. J ohnson claims that his conviction was “ba sed in larg e par t 2 on the blood tes t re s u l t s . ” This i s a problem, in Johnson’s view, beca use “the re is no evide nce establishing the chain of

custody afte r the jail nurse drewthe blood a nd befor e Ms. Steve ns analy zed6

the blo od .” John so n a

rgue s that thi s “ un de rm ine s the c re dib ili ty of and re lia bil ity of the blo od

te st results.” John s o n conclude s, “The g overnme nt’s complete f ailure to e stablish the integr ity of the State’s cr ucial piec e of e vidence ag ai n s t Ap p el lant, along with Appellant’s per formanc e on the videotape, r ender s this verdict of guilt factually insufficient.” I n a fa c tua l suf

fi c ie nc y re vie w, we c on sid e r wh e the r, a ft e r vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in
a ne utr a l li g ht, a

ra tio na l tr ie r o f fa c t wa s just if ie d in fin din g g uil t beyon d a r e a so na ble do ub t. See W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We “must be cognizant of the fact that a jury has alre ady

passed on the f

acts a nd must give due defe renc e to the dete rminations of the jury .” Lan c on v . S

tate , 253 S.W .3d 699, 704-05 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). “ A ver dict should be set aside o n l y i f t h e evidence suppor ting the ve rdict is so weak as to rende r the ve rdict cle arly wrong or manife stly

unjust.” Id . at 70 5; Kor e ll v . S tate , 253 S.W .3d 405, 412 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2008, pet. re f’d)
. There fore , we will not reve rse a judgme nt on a fa ctual suff iciency challeng e unless we
can sa y , with some objective ba sis in the recor d, that the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e contr adicts the ve rdict. W atson , 204 S.W .3d at 417. The dist rict court instructed the jury that it should find J ohnson g uilty of the fe lony offe nse of dr iving while intoxicated if it fou n d b ey o n d a re asonable doubt that (1) Johnson had operated a motor ve hicle while “ intox icated,” and (2) had two prior DWI convictions to which J ohnson had stipulated. See Tex. Pena l Code Ann. §§ 49.04(a) , (b), 49.09( b). I t further instructed the j ury that “intox icated” means either (1) “not having the normal use of mental or phy sical fa culties by rea son of the introduction of a lcohol into the body ,” or ( 2) having“an alcohol conc entration of 0.08 or more .” Se e id
. § 49.01(2)( A), (B ) (West 2003)
. Consequently , althoug h J ohnson focuse s7

pr ima ri ly on the se c on d th e or

y of int oxic a tio n, fa c tua lly

su ffi cie nt e vid e nc e of

e ith e r t he or y wi ll support the jury ’s finding of g uilt. Se e Ba gh e ri v. Stat e , 119 S.W .3d 755, 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 03 ); Kir

sc h v . S tate , 276 S.W .3d 579, 584 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2008, no pet. h.). The e vidence supporting a finding by

the jury that J ohnson did “not have the normal
u s e o f m en t al o r p h y s i ca l fa cu l t i es b y re as o no f t h e i n t ro d

u ct i o no f a l co h o l ” i n cl u d es t h e f o l l o wi n g:

• Medra

no testified that, when he pulled J ohnson over f or trave ling more than t

wenty miles per hour over the posted 40-miles-per -hour spe ed limit, he noticed that J ohnson’s ey es we re “ bloodshot and g lassy ,” and his speec h was “ slurred in c onversation.” Additionally , Medra

no “could smell a strong odor of alcoholic be vera g e emitting f rom his breath,” and obser

ved that Johnson “had some difficulty locating his driver’s lice nse” and “w as stumbling throug h the wallet try ing to f ind it.”

• Medra

no testified that, when J ohnson exit ed his ve hicle and approa ched him, Medrano noticed that Johnson “sway ed fr om side to side.”

• On the HGNtest, Medra no observe d “six clu es ”— t he hig hest number possible—sugg esting intox ication. Additionally , Medra no noticed that Johnson “kept on mov inghis he a d” and

“ sw ay e d v e ry

ob vio us ly ” wh ile takin g the te st.

• On the wa lk-and-tur

n test, Medra

no testi fi ed t hat J ohnson exhi bited four out of e ight possible c lues, including that he “lost balanc e during instructions” and “ failed to touch heel- to-toe.”

• On t h e one-le g -stand test, Medr ano testified that Johnson ex hibited three out of f our possible clues sug g esting intox ication.

• On the Romberg balanc e test, Medra no testified that J ohnson exhi bited a “one - to twoinch sway” both “f

ront to back” and “side to side.”

• J ohnson ref

used to provide a

breath sample.
As for the evidenc e contr ary to the j ury ’s finding , J ohnson asserts that “ the video is the strong est piece of evidence” in his favor . He c laims that the video shows him perfor ming the8

walk-a nd-turn test without stumbli ng or fa lling and that he “se emed to follow a ll inst ructions” whe n t ak i n g t h e t es t
. J o h n s o nfu rt h er cl ai m s t h at t h e v i d eo s h o ws h i m b ei n g ab l e t o p er fo rm t h e o n e- l egstand test and the Romberg balanc e test. Howeve r, i t was the jury ’s role, a s fac t-finder , to interpret what it saw on the r ecor ding, a nd the j u ry could have rea sonably inferr ed fr om the rec ording that J ohnson appea

red intoxi cate d. Furt h er m ore, in his testimony , Medra no addre ssed J ohnson’s behavior in the video. Acc ording to Me drano, a person c an be intoxicated without appea ring , in the prosec utor’s words, “dr op-dea d drunk” or “stag g eringor fa lling down.” The jury , when inter preting wh a t it saw o n th e vid e o, c ou ld have c ho se n to c re dit Me dr ano ’s te sti mony

on thi s p oin t, e sp e c ia lly when the jur

y considere d Medra

no’s experienc e. M ed ra n o testified that he ha s been a cer tified pe a c e of fi c e r fo r 16 y e ars , ha s bee n with the Au sti n Polic e De pa rtme nt fo r six y e ars , an d, of tho se six y e ars , h a s b e e n ass ig ne d to the DWI En fo rc e me nt U nit

fo r f ive . M e dr ano a lso te sti fi e d th a t he is an instructor in how to a dminist er the standardized fie ld sobr iety tests and has himself de monstrated the field sobrie ty

tests for people he has stopp ed “m an y times.” The jury

could have cre dited M ed ra n o’s testimony

about J ohnson’s perf

ormanc e on the f

ield sobriety

tests and discounted a

ny discrepa ncies the jury

may have perc eived between Medrano’ s testimony and Johnson’s appear ance on the video. Additionally , the video does nothing to neg ate the othe r evide nce suppor ting the jur

y ’s finding , including J ohnson’s high rate of speed while driving ; his appar ent diffi cu l t y i n finding his driver’s lice nse; his bloodshot and gla ssy ey es, slurred speec h, and strongodor of a lcohol; the six clues Medr ano obser

ved while a dminist eringthe HGN test; and J ohnson’s ref usal to provide a breath sample. See, e .g. , Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 724.061 (West 1999) (“A person’ s ref usal of a reque st by

an off icer to su b mit to t he takingof a spe cimen of br eath or blood, whether

the re fusal9

wa s ex pres s o r t

he re su lt o f a

n in te nti on a l f

a ilure to g ive the sp e c ime n, may be int ro du c e d in to
e vid e nc e a t th e pe rs on ’s tr ia l.” ); Cot ton v . S tate , 686 S.W .2d 140, 143 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (noting th a t e v id e n c e o f

in to xic a ti o nma

y in c lu d e , a mo n g o th e r

th in g s , s lu

r r e d s p e e c h , b lo o d shot
e y e s, od or

of a lc ohol , un st eady

ba lanc e , a

nd sta g g e re d g a it) ; An nis v . S tate , 578 S.W .2d 406, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (holding that uncorrobor ated testimony of ar resting office r is sufficie nt to p ro ve int oxica ti on ); Kirsch , 276 S.W .3d at 584 (c onsidering excessive spee d as evide nce of int oxic a tio n) ; He nn essy

v . S tate , 268 S.W .3d 153, 162 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. re f’d) (c on sid e ri ngc lue s d

ri ve r e xhibi te d o n H GNte st a s e vid e nc e of int oxic a tio n) ; Ha rtm an v . S tate , 198 S.W .3d 829, 834 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. dis m’d) (“ The jury m ay consider the de fe nd ant’ s r e fu sa l to su bmi t to a br e a th t e st a s e vid e nc e of dr ivi ng wh ile int oxic a te d. ” ); Marke y
v . S tat e , 996 S.W .2d 226, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (c onsidering driver’ s ina bil ity to fi nd lic e ns e a s e vid e nc e of int oxic a tio n) ; se e als o B ar tle tt v . S tate , 270 S.W .3d 147, 153 & n. 20 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ) ( ob se rv ingthat e vid e nc e of a pp e lla nt’ s r e fu sa l to su

bmi t to br e a th t e s t i s re l ev an tb ec au s e i t“t en d s t o s h o w a co n s ci o u s n es s o f gu i l t ” o np ar to f p er s o nre fu s i n g, alth o u g h s u c h e v id e n c e “ d o e s n o t e s ta b li s h a le g a ll y r e c o g n iz e d

p r e s u mp ti o no f

c o n s c io u s n e s s of g uilt that follows from the fac t of ref usal”). Ba sed on the above , we c annot say , with some objective ba sis in the recor d, that the g re a t w e ig ht a

nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e c on tr a dic ts a fi nd ing by the jur

y that John so n d id “not have the normal use of mental or phy sical fa culties by rea son of the introduction of alc ohol.” I n the alter

native, we conclude that th e ev i d en ce was fa ctually sufficie nt to support J ohnson’s10

conviction based on the theory that J ohnson had a blood a lcohol conce ntration of .08 or more
. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 49.01(2)( B)
.

Stevens testified that , afte r she a naly zed J ohnson’s blood sample, she re ported John so n’ s b loo d a lc oh ol c on c e ntr a tio n a s . 16 g ra ms p e r 1 00 mil lil ite rs , two tim e s th e statut or y lim it. Th is w a s a c tu a ll y

th e lo w e s t o f

th e f o u r r e s u lt s
— . 1 7 6 1 , . 1 7 6 6 , . 1 7 0 2 , an d
. 1 6 9 8

—th a t S te vens obtained duringher a

naly sis. Base d on these re sults, S tevens e stimated that J ohnson’s blood alcohol
conce ntration at the time of the tr aff ic stop was eve n highe r—.18 to .20. J ohnson points to no contrary evidenc e in the re cord sugge s t ing that the blood test results wer e incor

rec t. I nstead, Johnson attacks the “integ rity ” of the evidenc e, asse rting that the State fa iled to establish its chain of custody . I n J ohnson’s view, “ there is absolutely no evidenc e whatsoeve r establishing the cha in of custody of the vial of blood which was taken f rom Appellant from the tim e th e nu r s e to o k th e b lo o d

o nN o v e mb e r

2 2 , 2 0 0 8 to th e ti me M s . St e v e n s te s te d the blood seven da

y s later on Nove mber 29, 2008.” I n order for the r esults of a blood test to be admitted into evidence , a prope r cha in of custody of t he blood sample t hat was draw n from the acc used and later te sted must be established. Pe nle y v . S tate , 2 S.W .3d 534, 537 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. re f’d) . Proof of the be g inning and end of

a cha in of custody

will support the admi s sion of the evidenc e in the abse nce of any evidenc e of tamperingor alter ation. Se e Sto k e r v . S tate , 788 S.W .2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Do sse tt v . S

tate , 216 S.W .3d 7, 17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref ’d). Thus, any

g aps or the or e tic a l br e a c he s in

the c ha in o f c us tod

y g o to the we ig ht o f t

he e vidence ra

the r t ha n to its11

a dmi ssibili ty
. Se eLag

ro nev . S tate , 9 42 S.W. 2d

60 2, 61 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); Do sse tt , 216 S.W .3d at 17.

The State prese nted evidenc e of the chain of custody throug h Offic er Me d rano; the nurse who perf

ormed the blood draw, S u s an Wil liams; and Stevens. Medra no explained that of fi c e rs in t he DWI En fo rc e me nt U nit carry in t he ir patr ol v e hic le s se a le d tu

be s th a t e a c h c on ta in a vial used for st oring blood afte r i t is draw n by a nurse. Medra no testified that the off

icer brea ks the tube’s se al in front of the person whose blood is be ing draw n so the person knows “that the blood tub e ha s n ot be e n ta

mpe re d w ith , th a t it ’s be e n s e a le d a nd it h a sn ’t be e n o pe ne d o r s ome bo dy e lse ha s u se d it .” Th e of

fi c e r a lso sig ns the tub e wh e n it i s u se d. Me dr ano ide nti fi e d St a te ’s Exhi bit 5
a s th e blo od

tub e he us e d in

thi s c a se , a

nd he te sti fi e d th a t th e tub e ha d h is s ig natur e on it. Wil liams testified that she dre w t h e blood from Johnson—wiping his arm with iodine rathe r th an al co h o l—placed the blood in a vial, place d the blood in a tube, and se aled the tube
. Al tho ug h Williams d id n ot t e sti fy that sh e sig ne d th e tub e , Wil liams w a s h and e d St a te ’s Exhi bit 5
and a sk e d if sh e re c og nize d it . Wil liams t e sti fi e d, “ Ye s, I do .” Whe n a sk e d w hat State ’s Exhi bit 5 was, Willi ams testified, “It’s the tube that they put the blood vial in.” The State then asked, “ And is t his the blo od

via l th a t be lon g s to t he defe nd ant c on ta ini nga sampl e of

his blo od ? ” Willi a ms
answe red, “I t’s to Darr en He nry J ohnson.” Ne x t, the State asked, “ And once y ou completed dr awing the blood, what did y ou do with the vial? ” Willi ams testified, “We p ut it int o this vial and it’s seale d.” When aske d if she ha d an y rea son to believe that the tube had bee n altere d or tamper ed with in any

way , Wil liams answer ed, “N o.” On c ross, Wil liams was aske d if she sawthe blood12

sampl e be pu t in

the via l. Wi lli a ms te sti fi e d, “ Ye s, sir
. I pu t the blo od int o th e via l and

the via l in to that particula

r conta iner.” Stevens testified that the tube w as sea led when she tested the blood. She verifie d that her initials appea

red on Exhibit 5. W hen as k ed ab o u t the cha in of custody for the tube , Stevens testified that the first name on the chai n o f cu s t ody was Medr ano, followe d by other names who
we re no t id e nti fi e d, and

the n h e r n a me la st. J ohnson urg es that the unidentified persons who appar ently handled the tube during the seve n day s betwee n his blood draw and the blood being tes t ed co u l d have tampere d with or altere d the evidenc e, either a ccide ntally or intentionally . Howeve r, Johns on does not dispute the fa ct t h a tt h e S t a t e e s t a

b l i s h e d t h e b e g i n n i n g ( M e dr an o ) an d t h e e n d ( S t e v e n s ) o f

t h e c h a i n o f

c u s t o dy. Moreov er , J o h n son prese nted no af firmative e vidence to raise a n infere nce that the evidenc e had been a ltered or

tampere d with at any point either prior to or after the a naly sis of the blood. Medra no testified that the policy

of t he DW I Enforc ement Unit is for the a rre sting off

icer to break the blood tube’s seal in f

ront of the person whose blood is being draw n so the person know s “that the blood tube has not bee n tampere d with, that it’s been sea led and it hasn’t been ope ned or somebody
e lse ha s u se d it .” Me dr ano ide nti fi e d th e tub e us e d in thi s c a se , a

nd te sti fi e d th a t th e tub e ha d h is signature on it. Wil liams, the reg istered nur se who withdre w J ohnson’s blood, t es tified that she fo llo we d th e no rm a l pr oc e dure fo r d ra wi ngblo od , p la c e d th e blo od in a via l, an d sea le d the via l in
a tub e . Wh e n ask e d if she ha d an y re a so n to bel ie ve that th e tub e ha d b e e n a lte re d o r t a mpe re d w ith in an y w ay , Wi ll ia

ms an s w e r e d , “ N o . ” F in a ll y , St e v e n te s ti f ie d th a t h e r in it ia ls w e r e on the tube,
and , w he n s he br ou g ht t

he e vid e nc e int o co ur

t, “the tub e wa s sea le d. ” Un de r the se c ir c ums tanc e s,13

t h e o n l y i s s u e i s t h e w e i g h tt o b e a c c o r d e d t h e b l o o d t e s tr e s u l t s , w h i c h w a s t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u r y. Se e Cad de ll v . S tate , 123 S.W .3d 722, 727 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho uston [ 14th Dist.] 2003, pet. re f’d) (“O bjections reg ardingtheore tical or spec ulative bre ache s in the chain, without aff irmative evide nce
o f i mp r o p r i e t y, g o t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e r a t h e r t h ant o i t s a dm i s s i b i l i t y. ” )
. W e c an n o ts ay, with an objective ba sis in the recor d, t h at t h e gre at weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e contra dicts a finding by

the jury t h at J ohnson had a blood a lcohol conce ntration of .08 or more
. Ac c or din g ly , ba se d on eithe r de fi nit ion of int oxic a tio n, we c on c lud e that the e vid e nc e is f a c tua lly sufficie nt to support J ohnson’s conviction for driving while intox icated. We overrule J ohnson’s sole point of err or.
CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 5, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh