i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 67 9- CR Da nie l LEIJA , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 1, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court No. 968937 Honora ble Al Alonso, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 11, 2009 AFF I RMED Daniel L eija wa s convicted by a jury for the offe nse of driving while intox icated. T he trial court’s punishment included 180 day s in the county jail, pr obated and suspende d for a term of two y ear s, and a $2,000 f

ine. L eija’s only issue on appea l is that the tria l court’s jury instruction, noting that the jury

could consider

L ei j a’ s ref usal to submit t o a bre ath test as evide nce a g ainst him, was
e rr or be c a us e it w a s an im

pr op e r c omm e nt on the we ig ht of e vid e nc e . We a g re e . H ow e ve r, be c a us e04
- 08
- 00 67 9- CR

1 ... B e c a us e tw o o f t

he of fi c e rs inv olv e d in

thi s in c ide nt h a ve the surn a me Ga rc ia , w e wi ll re fe r t o th e m by

the ir fi rs t na me s.

- 2- L e ija fa ile d to ob

je c t to the ins tr

uc tio n d ur ing the tr ia l and the re c or d fa ils to s ho w e g re g iou s h a rm , we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND San A nto nio po lic e of

fi c e r G e ra ld A nth on y

Ga rc ia 1 (“ Of fi c e r G e ra ld” ) wa s on his wa y ho me from wor k late one nig ht when he obse rved a vehicle a pproac hing him from behind at a high rate of speed. O ffice r Ge rald’s department motorcy cle was equipped with a radar unit which indicated the
car was traveling at 85 miles pe r hour. As the vehicle passed Of fice r Ge rald, the ve hicle moved ove r
and “ c ut i nto ” Of

fi c e r G e ra ld’ s la

ne . T he of

fi c e r t e sti fi e d th a t he a lmo st d ro pp e d h is b ike be c a

us e he had to swe rve out of the vehicle’ s way , and that he be lieved if he wa s not such an experienc ed mot or c y c le dr ive r, he wo uld have be e n k ill e d th a t ni g ht d ue to the e va siv e a c tio n he wa s f or c e d to take . T he of

fi c e r imme diate ly tur

ne d on his lig hts , b ut t

he ve hic le did

no t r e sp on d. Of

fi c e r G e ra ld caug ht up with the driver, Da niel L eija, whom he observe d to be dazed and c onfused. The office r signa led the drive r to pull over, which he did. As he appr oache d the vehicle ’s open window, O ffice r Ger ald observe d a st rong smell of i ntox icants coming from L eija. B eca use Off icer Ger ald was of

fdu ty and the re fo re un a

ble to w rite tra ff

ic c itatio ns , h e no tif

ie d d isp a tc h to se nd

ano the r o ff

ic e r t o ha nd le the c a ll. San Antonio police offic er John Garc ia (“ Offic er John”) re spo nded to the dispatch. H e appr o ac h ed t h e v eh icle and shine d a fla shlight into the bac k seat of the car , wher e he obse rved a brown ba g with a clea

r bottle partially

underne ath the passe ng er f ront seat. Of

fice r J ohn observe d04
- 08
- 00 67 9- CR

- 3- that L e ija sme lle d o f i nto xica

nts and ha d g la ssy , blo od sh ot e y e s. Of fi c e r Johnc on du c te d tw o f ie ld
so br ie ty te sts on L e ija , both of wh ic h he fa ile d. Of fi c e r John a

rr e ste d L e ija

and tr ans po rt e d h im t o the pol ice station. L eija refused to g ive a br eath or blood sample, or to per form sobriety tests in the vid e o r oo m. I n acc ordanc e with sec tion 724.061 of the Texas Transpor tatio n Co d e , th e tria l court admitted into evidence L eija’s r efusa l to submi t to the breath test. Additionally , the cour t’s jury char g e stated: “You a re instructed that y ou may consider the defe ndant’s re fusal to submit to a breath test a s evidenc e in this case.” L eija did not object to the jury char g e. He now appe als his conviction. I M P ROP E R J URY I NS T RUCT I ON L eija conc edes that his refusal to submit to a bre ath test is admissible evidence , but argues that the trial cour

t may not instruct the jury

reg ardinghis failure to submit to a breath test, as it is an impermissible comment on the weig ht of the evide nce. See T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE ANN . § 724.061 (Ve rnon 1999). L eija points to a rec ent opinion by this court, Va rg

as v . S tat e , N o. 04 -0 7- 00 61 8- CR, 2008 WL 3926390 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug . 27, 2008, no p et . ), i n which we held that the inclusion of such an instruc tion amounted to an impermissible co m m en t on the weig ht of the evidenc e. Id. at *2. The State c oncede s that the jury instruction submit ted to the jury was improper
. Be cause the jury

was improper ly

char g ed by

the court, we must a ddress whether the err or re sulted in eg reg ious harm to L eija.04
- 08
- 00 67 9- CR

- 4- H A R M A N A L Y SIS L e ija did no t obje c t to the jur

y ins tr uc tio n at tri a l. A

bs e nt a n o bje c tio n, re ve rs ibl e e rr or e xists only if the re cord shows a defe ndant has suff ere d not only

actua l harm, but eg reg ious harm re sulting from the incor

rec t char g e. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Te x . Crim. App. 1984) (establishing the prope r standar d of re view for jury char g e er ror in the a

bsence of an objection to jury char g e). Eg regi o u s harm ar ises if the er ror is so seve re that it deprived the a ccuse d of a f air a nd impart i al t ri al. Id. I n deter mining whe ther e g reg ious harms exist s, we c onsider the f ollowing fac tors: (1) the e ntire jury char g e; (2) the state of the e vidence ; (3) the arguments of counsel; and (4) any other relevant information in the rec ord as a whole. Richardson v. State, 879 S.W .2d 874, 88 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Almanza, 686 S.W .2d at 171. I n support of his claim t hat the jury instruction resulted in eg reg ious harm, L eija ar g ues that the pla c e me nt o f t

he ins tr uc tio n, in a

pa ra g ra phby its e lf and sand wi c he d b e tw e e n a lle g e dly conflicting instructions about inadmissibl e evidenc e, likely confuse d the jurors. He also contends the impact of the err oneous instructio n was a ll the more har mful in light of the State’ s evidenc e, which consisted solely of officers’ testimony , and cla ims the instruction bolst ere d the cr edibility of Offic er Ger ald and Offic er J ohn. L eija also c halleng es the testimony of Off icer J ohnny Ruiz , who tol d th e jur

y tha t w hil e no on e is fo rc e d to subm it to fur the r f ie ld s ob ri e ty

te sts on c a me ra , h a d L e ija
c ho se n to he c ou ld have pr ov e n he wa s not into xicate d— int imatin g to the jur y that be c a us e of his
re fu sa l to take the te st, he mus t ha ve be e n in toxic a te d. L e ija a lso c on te nd s tes tim on y c on c e rn inghis interac tion wi t h Of

fi cer Ruiz should not have bee n allowed, a s it was post-arr est, and testimony commenting upon post-arr est silence is improper . Finally , L eija ar g ues that on sever al occ asions the04
- 08
- 00 67 9- CR

- 5- State e lic ite d a

ns we rs in su c h a

mann e r t hat th e y sh if te d th e burd e n to L e ija , a nd ma de c omm e nts during objections or while a ddressing the trial cour t that shifted the burde n of proof to L eija. Th e se sp e c if

ic argume nts ra ise d by L e ija on a pp e a l w e re ne ve r p re se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt . Be cause these issues we re not pre serve d, they cannot be considere d as discre te points of err or. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1 (a ) ( re qu ir ing“ a tim e ly , s pe c if

ic ob je c tio n a nd a ru lin g by th e tr ia l c ourt ” to prese rve a

complaint for a

ppellate r eview) . Take n in the context of L ei j a’s jury char g e cha lleng e,
no ne of the se argume nts pe rs ua de us that eg re g iou s har m is pr e se nt i n th is c a se . D ur ingthe c ours e of the trial, the jury

was pre sented with the followingevidenc e upon which it could have asse ssed g uil t: ( 1) L e ija

c ut of f Of fi c e r Ge ra ld on his mot or c y c le , a lmo st c a us ing an a c c ide nt; (2 ) L e ija did not immedi at el y p u l l over w hen he obse rved O ffice r Ge rald’s lig hts; (3) both office rs observe d a strong smell of intox icants coming from L eija; (4) L eija appea red dazed and confuse d; (5) L eija had g la ssy , b loo ds ho t e y e s; ( 6) an o pe n b ott le of rum wa s fo un d in L e ija ’s c ar; (7 ) L e ija fa ile d tw o f ie ld
so br ie ty te sts ; and (8 ) L e ija re fu se d to subm it to the re qu e ste d bre a th te st an d v ide oe d s ob ri e ty te sts . Ba sed on this evidence , the jury could have found L eija g uilty bey ond a re asonable doubt. L e ija a lso a sse rt s that the State imp ro pe rl y argue d a bo ut h is f a ilure to s ub mit

to t he br e a th test during its closing ar g ument. Howeve r, prope r jury argument includes sum m ati on of the evidenc e pre sented at trial, rea sonable deduction draw n from that evidence, a nswer to the opposing counsel’s a

rg ument, and a ple a for

law enf orce ment. Jack

son v. State, 1 7 S. W.3d 664, 673 (T e x. Cr im. App
. 20 00 ). Thus , a ny c omm e nt b y

the State on

L e ija ’s fa ilure to s ub mit

to t he br e a th t e st, including the deduction that his rea son for re fusing to take the test wa s that L eija wa s intox icated, was prope r jury

argument. See id.04
- 08
- 00 67 9- CR

- 6- Absent any

evidenc e to the contr ary , the jury could have assessed L eij a’s guilt, bey ond a
rea sonable doubt, based on other evidenc e pre sented at trial. See B rown v. State, 122 S.W .3d 794, 803-04 (Te x . Crim. App. 2003). Moreove r, t he record lacks any evidenc e that the error was e ither calc ulated to injure the r ights of the de fenda nt or deprive the def

endant of a fa ir trial. See A lmanza, 68 6 S. W.2 d at 17 1; Hess v. State, 224 S.W .3d 511, 515 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2007, pet. ref’d)
. Thus, L eija fa iled to prove e g reg ious harm, and his issue is overr uled. C ONCL US I ON L e ija has fai led to pr ov e the State ’s e rr on e ou s jury ins tr uc tio n r e su lte d in

e g re g iou s h a rm . Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt .

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Do No t Pu

bli sh