For m er T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s Judge C har l es F

. Bai r d au t hor ed t he Cour t ’ s pr i or opi ni on. 1 O n r em and, t he case ha s bee n assi gned t o Chi efJust i ce Val dez , who i s si t t i ng wi t h Just i ces Rodr i guez and B e n a v i d e s
. 

### NUM BER 13-02- 0036 7-CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G

ROB ERT GR

A Y, A pp ellan t,

v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 34 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## M EMO RA NDUM OPI NI ON ON REMA ND Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion o n Re man d by C hie f J us tice Vald ez 1 A j u r y c o n v i c t e d a p p e l l a n t , R o b e rt G r a y , o f i n t o x i c a t i o n ma n s l a u g h t e r and ag g ra v ated ass aul t and se ntenc ed hi m to 5 0 y ear s’ i mpri sonment

. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . §§ 49.08, 22.0 2 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. By a s ing le poi nt of

err or , Gray

contends thatG r a y o r ig in a lly r a is e d tw o p o in ts o f e r r o r , b u t th e c o u r t o f c r im in a l a p p e a ls h a s a lr e a d y o v e r r u le d h is 2 f i r st poi nt of

er r or i n G ra y

v . S ta te , 23 3 S

. W

. 3d 29 5, 30 1-0 2 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 07 ). Al l i ssues of l aw pr esent ed by t hi s case ar e wel l set t l ed, and t he par t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s. 3 T her ef or e, we wi l l not r eci t e t he l aw or t he f act s i n t hi s m em or andum opi ni on, except as ne cessar y t o ad v i se th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 2 the t ri al cour

t er re d i n admi tti ng bl ood t estr esul ts of his i ntox ic ati on. W e aff ir m. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND 3 On F ebr uar y 2, 2001 , atappr ox imat ely 5:15 p.m., a s por

t- uti li ty v ehi cl e dr iv en by Gr ay cr ashed into a compact car on Ol d Brow nsv il le Ro ad in C or pus Chr is ti , Tex as. F ra nk Monroe , Jr., the driv er of the car, sust aine d serious inju ries and was paraly z ed a s a result of the accid ent . Beverly

Moore, Frank’s mo the r and th e on ly othe r occup a n t of

the car, die d at the s cene
. G ra y w as tak en to a ho spi tal , w her e tw o bl ood s amples w er e dr aw n. At 8:30 p.m., Gr ay w as re lea sed from the hospi tal and tr anspo rt ed to j ail

. Gr ay w as lat er ind ic ted for

i n to xica ti on mans lau g hter ( countone) , ag g ra v ated ass aul t ( count s tw o and four) , and int ox ic ati on as saul t ( countthr ee)

. See id

. §§ 49. 08, 2 2.02, 49.0 7 ( Ver non Su pp. 200 8). At t ri al, the Stat e off er ed, a mong othe r thi ng s, a v ial of Gr ay ’s bl ood, Gr ay ’s medi cal
re cor ds from hi s emerg ency ro om v is it after the acc ide nt, and a blo od anal y si s r epor t by the Tex as Dep artment of Publi c S afety ’s C ri me Lab ( “D PS r epor t” ). G ra y obj ect ed to the
a d m is s io n o f

t h e via l a n d t h e DP S re p o rt b e c a u s e t h e y we re o b t a in e d wit h o u t h is e f f e c t ive
conse nt an d in vio lation of the tran sporta tion co de. The trial court ov erruled Gray’s obj ect ion s a nd admi tted both ex hib it s. The D PS r epor t s how s t hat G ra y

had a bloodalc ohol co ntentof .09. Gr ay obj ect ed to the admis si on of the medic al re cor ds on th e g ro und t hat t hei r admis si on w oul d v iol ate p ri v acy pr ov is ion s u nder

the Tex as Me dic al Practices Act . Th e trial court overruled Gray’ s object ion an d adm itted the m edica l records. T hey show tha t Gray had a bloo d-alcoh ol cont ent of .146 , as testif ied to byLinda Snyder,3

an e me rg ency-room nu rse. Snyder testif ied th at Gray entered the eme rg ency room as a “t ra uma co de or ale rt ” and that it w as sta ndar d pr ocedu re to per form l ab w or k o n s uch a pat ient, including blood -alcoho l conte nt te sts. The ju ry co nv ic ted G ra y

on a ll f o u r co u n ts. The S tate ele cte d to pr oceed to pun ishm ent on only the intoxication man slaughte r coun t and one of the aggrav ate d assa ult
coun ts. Th e jury

assesse d pu nishm ent at f if ty y ears’ imp risonm ent , and the trial court enter ed a jud g ment and se ntenc e on the j ur y ’s v er dic t. This appeal ens ued. II. D I S CUS S I ON On ap peal , G ra y

ar g ues that the t ri al co u rt er re d i n admi tti ng the thr ee af or e m e ntion ed e x hibits be cause the evidence w as ob taine d w ithou t his conse nt an d in
v iol ati on of sec ti on 724. 012 of the tr anspo rt ati on c ode. See T EX
. T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN . § 724.012 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. Gr ay als o ar g ues that the e v ide nce w as ina dmis si ble under
arti cl e 38. 23 of the code o f cr imi nal pr ocedu re and the F our th A mendment of the U .S. Con sti tuti on. See U .S. C ON ST
. amend. I V; T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.23 (V er non 2005)

. The Stat e cont ends that Gr ay did not pr eser v e hi s c ode of cr imi nal pr ocedu re and Four th A mendment po int s b ecaus e he did not pr esent them to the tr ial cour t. W e ag re e. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1; Smit h v . St ate , 721 S.W .2d 8 44, 8 55 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) (p ro v idi ng that v ir

tual ly ev er

y ri g ht, w hether

co nst it uti onal or

st atuto ry , may

be w aiv ed by faili ng to obj ect ). Ac cor din g ly , w e w il l only a d d re ss Gr ay ’s eff ect iv e c onsen t and tr anspo rt ati on c ode arg uments as theyrel ate to the admiss ion of the v ial and DP S r epor t. T he s t and ard of

rev iew for a trial court’s adm ission or excl usion of ev iden ce in g ener al is abuse of dis cr eti on. Gr een v . St ate , 934 S.W .2d 92, 101 -0 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 6). As long as the trial court’s evidentiary r u li n g is wi t hin th e z one of reason able4

dis ag re ement, an appel lat e cour t may not dis tur b i t. Id . at 102. Gr ay ar g ues that the t ri al
cour t er re d i n admi tti ng the v ial and the D PS r epor t bec a use he di d notco nsentto pr ov idi ng a s ample, and he w as not u nder ar re st at t he ti me thatth e b lo o d s a mple w as tak en. At t he ti me of the acc ide nt, sec ti on 724.012 (b ) of t he tr anspo rt ati on code pr ov ide d: (b) A peace of

f icer sh a ll r e quire th e takin g of a specim en o f

the pe rson’s b r e a t h o r b l o o d i f: (1 ) the o ff ic er ar re sts the per son for an off ense under C hapter 49, Pen al Co d e , inv olvi ng the op eratio n of a mo tor v ehicle o r a w ater cr aft; ( 2 ) t h e p e r s o n w a s t h e o p e r a t o r o f a mo t o r v e h i c l e o r a w a t e r c r a ft inv olv ed in an acc ide nt t hat t he officer r eason abl y

bel iev es occ ur re d as a r esul t of the off ense; (3 ) at t he ti me of

the ar re st the o ff ic er

r eason abl y

bel iev es that a per son has die d or

w il l die as a di re ct re su lt of the a cc ide nt; and (4 ) the per son re fuses the off ic er ’s re q uest to submi t to the t aki ng o f a sp e c im e n vo lu n t a ri ly. Acto f J u n e 19, 1997, 75th Leg ., R. S., ch. 1013, § 33 , 199 7 T EX
. G EN
. L AW S 3698 (a mended 200 3) ( cur re nt v er si on atT EX
. T RANSP
. C OD E A NN
. § 724.012 ( Ver non Su pp. 2008) ). Th e S tate ar g ues t h a t t h e r e w a s e v i d e n c e t h a t G r a y c o n s e n t e d t o t h e t a k i n g o f a bloo d sam ple. After the v ial and DPS report w ere ad mitt ed, L eroy Torres, a sta te troo per, tes t i fi e d t h a t h e w a s a s s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e a n d t h e n w e n t t o the hospi tal to ar re st Gr ay
. Trooper Torr es w as ask ed, “D id Rob ert G ra y co nsentto the t aki ng of his bl ood?” An d, Tr ooper Torr es re spond ed, “Yes, h e d id .” I n Rac hal , t he c our t of
cr imi nal appeal s h eld thatw her e the State, w it hout obje cti on, rai ses a pr ev iou sl y l it ig ated5

suppr ess ion i ss ue at tr ial and the defendant makes an ele cti on to r e- open t he ev ide nce, t h e n co n s id e ra t io n o f

t h e re le va n t t ri a l t e s t im o n y is a p p r o p r i a t e fo r a p p e ll a t e re vie w. Ra ch a l v. State , 9 1 7 S. W .2 d 79 9 , 8 0 9 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). Ap p lyin g Rac hal to the ins tant caus e, w e ar e free to r ev iew Troo per Torr es’ s s ubseq uent tes ti mony r eg ar din g Gary’ s cons e nt be cause he did n ot object to th e test imo ny. T here f ore, th ere w as a
re asona ble basis f or

the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t t he v ial and DP S r epor t. See R am os
v. State, 124 S.W .3d 3 26, 3 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 03, pet. re f’d) (p ro v idi ng that a tr ial
co u rt ’s deter minat ion of an off ic er ’s cr edi bil it y and demeanor ar e enoug h to suppo rta findi ng thata s uspec t v olu ntar il y co nsent ed to pr ov ide a bl ood s ample)

. Reg ar dle ss of
w hether Gr ay w as u n d e r a rres t atthe ti me the sampl e w as re q uest ed, G ra y ’s se cti on 724.012 a r g u me n t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t b e c a u s e t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t h e c o n s e n t e d t o t he blo od s ample. G ra y ’s onl y r emaini ng poi nt of er ro r is ov er ru led

.

III
. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n on Remand del iv er ed and fil ed th is the 25th day of Nov ember , 200 8.