i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No s. 04 -0 6- 00 25 1- CR, 04 -0 6- 00 25 2- CR, 04 -0 6- 00 25 3- CR

S c o t tK e l l y BIRKHOLZ , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 226th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court Nos. 2004-CR-5574, 2004-CR-5575, 2004-CR-5576

Honora ble Pat Priest, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J anuar y 14, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED I n th e e arl y

mor nin g ho ur s o f Janu ary

3, 20 03 , w itn e sse s c a me up on a on e -c ar a c c ide nt i n Helotes. They wer e able to pull one person, Scott Kelly Birkholz (“B irkholz”), from the bur ning c ar. The thre e re maining a ccide nt victims perished in the fire : Trac y Birkholz , h i s wi fe; Bra ndon Birkholz, his brother; and Thoma s Bowe n, h i s fr i end. A blood dra w showed B irkholz’s blood alcohol leve l was 0.12, and a title searc h reve aled the c ar involved w as re g is t ere d to his name. B ir kh olz w a s arr e ste d a

nd c ha rg e d w ithre sp on sib ili ty

fo r t he a c c ide nt.04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 2- A jury found B irkholz guilty

of three counts of intox ication manslaug hter a nd assessed punishment of community supervision for a

p er i o d o f t en y ear s. The trial c ourt denied B irkholz’s mot ion s f or a new tr ial
. On app e a l, B ir kh olz c on te nd s th a t ( 1) the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis motion to reope n, and (2) the evidenc e is fac tually insufficient to support the jury ’s finding s that he was driving . We ag ree that the trial court err ed in f ailing to r eopen the evidenc e and thus reve rse a nd
rema nd. M OT I ON T O REOPEN Texas Code of C riminal Procedur e article 36.02 provides, “The c ourt shall allow testimony to b e i n t r o d

u c e d a t an y t i m e b e f

o r e t h e ar g u m e n t o f a c a

u s e i s c o n c l u d e d , i f i t a

p p e ar s t h a t i t is
nece ssary to a due a dminist ration of justice.” T EX . C ODE . C R IM . P RO . art. 36.02 (V ernon 2007). The T ex as C o u rt o f C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s h as n o t ed t h at a “du e ad m i n i s t ra t i o n o f j u s t i ce ” r eq u i re s a j u d ge to reope n the case i f t he evidence would materia lly chang e the case in the proponent’s favor
. Pee k v. S t ate, 1 0 6 S. W. 3 d 7 2 , 7 9 ( T e x. Cr im
. Ap p . 2 0 0 3 )
. T h a t th e p r o f f e r e d e v id e n c e is r e le v an t is not enough; it “must actually make a differ ence in the case ” and not be cumulative of e vidence previously

prese nted. Id.; se e also Salazar v. State, 38 S.W .3d 141, 155 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). I n addition, the new e vidence must be introduced pr ior to closing a rguments in order to meet the standard. Pee k, 106 S.W .3d at 79. We reviewthe trial cour

t’s decision on a motion to reope n for a n abuse of

di scre tion. See Pee k, 10 6 S. W.3 d at 79 . T he re is a n a bu se of dis c re tio n if the tr ia l c ourt de nie s a tim e ly mot ion to reope n and the proff

ere d evidenc e would have materially chang ed the c ase in the pr oponent’s fa vor. See id. at 78. We will not dis turb the trial cour t’s ruling unless such rulingfalls outside the “zone of re asonable disag ree ment.” Mo ntgom e ry v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 3- F ur the r, no re ve rs ibl e e rr or

ex is ts in th e re fu sa l to re op e n unle ss a su bs tanti a l r ig ht o f a

pa rt y is aff ecte d. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44 .2 (b ); Rodriguez v. State, 97 4 S.W. 2d 36 4, 37 0 (Tex . App.– Am ari llo 1998, pet. re f’d)
. Re le v ant Fac ts On J anuar

y 3, 2003 at appr ox imately 2:45 a.m., witness Debbie Crow was drivingher c ar when she saw a

fire. A s she g ot closer she rea liz ed the fire came from a car that was upside down and burningfrom the ba ck. Crow c alled 911 and the n approa ch ed t h e ca r, which was so full of smoke she wa s unable to see inside. Crow unsucce ssfully attempted to break i n the driver ’s window. A fe w minutes later, witness David Gre en ar rived on the sc ene, a

nd was a ble to kick in the driver ’s side window. B irkholz reache d his ha nds out of the car , and Crow and Gr een pulled him out. They dr a g g e d h im a

fe w f e e t awa y fr om t he ve hic le . Wh ile Gr e e n te nd e d to B ir kh olz, Cr owre tur

ne d to the ca r to help the other

occupa nts escape , but was unsucc essful. They then m oved B irkholz further
awa y from the c ar. B irkholz appeare d dazed and incohe rent, a nd was una

war e he ha d been bur

ned. L aw e nforc ement off

icer s then beg an respondingto the acc ident. Be x ar County Sheriff’ s Deputy Be lton Johnson wa s the first to a rrive, and he noticed that Birkholz smelled like alcohol. He sat Birkholz in his patrol ca r so he would not be hur

t; however , he then r ealized B irkholz’s clothes
wer e still smoki ng , and moved him bac k outside. Birkholz was plac ed on a gurney , and par amedics beg an cuttinghis clothes awa y from him. As they tried to treat Birkholz, he was unc ooperative and combative, removing and shredding the burn blanket, pulling at belts, and beingbellige rent with the technicia ns. Another she riff’ s depu t y , Dennis O’Stee n, went to the ambulanc e whe re the technicia ns
we re tr e a tin g B ir

kh olz. At that po int , p ara

me dic Rob e rt

Mo y a tol d O ’S te e n th a t if

he wa nte d to ta lk04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 4- to Birkholz h e n ee d ed t o do it then, beca use they wer e g oing to se date him in order to continue tr e a tme nt. B ir

kh olz t old

O’ Ste e n r e pe a te dly

that he wa s n ot d

ri vin g the c ar. Whe n a sk e d w ho e lse was in the ve hicle, B irkholz first said he did not k n o w, t h en s aid i t might have been his wife and brother. It was not until the fire wa s put out that officials re alized a third victim was in the ca r. Af te r O ’S te e n q

ue sti on e d B ir

kh olz, Mo y a

g a ve B ir kh olz 3 mil lig ra

ms o f V e rs e d to se date him , a nd the n 1 00 mil lig ra

ms o f V e c ur oniu m, a p ara ly tic a g e nt t

hat e na ble d th e pa

ra me dic s to intubate B irkholz so he could br eathe more easily and be treated for his bur ns. Due to this sedation with Verse d, the eff

ects of which are enhanc ed by alcohol, Birkholz lost his memory of the a ccide nt and the events leading up to it. At trial, Moy a testified that the a mnesia-pr oducingdrugVer sed ca n
cause someone to experienc e amne sia and re trog rade amnesia. In dividuals give n Ver sed do not
rec all incidents at or a

round an e vent. Birkholz was ai rl i ft ed to Univer sity Hospital, where a blood dra w was pe rfor

med at approximately

5:45 a.m. Birkholz’s blood-alc ohol level was a pproxi mately

0.12 at the time of the draw . Ex trapolation re veale d that his blood-alcohol level at the time of the ac cident wa s
a pp ro xima te ly

0. 18 . Cr e dit

c ard re c or ds re ve a le d that pri or to the a c c ide nt, the g ro up ha d be e n to
sever al establishments that eve ning, c harg ing a lcoholic drinks at ea ch. Motion to Reopen with New Evidence Birkholz was indicted on thre e counts of intoxication manslaug hter. At trial, the key issue
argue d b y bo th s ide s w a s w he the r B ir kh olz w a s d

ri vin g the c ar. Th e State pr e se nted e vid e nc e in support of its argument that Birkholz was drivingthe ca r at the tim e o f t h e acc ident. Evidence prese nted at trial include d: the fac t that Birkholz was pulled from the window on the dr iver’s side of the c ar; B irkholz’s ownership of the c ar; B irkholz’s statement before sedation t hat hi s wife wa s04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 5- behind him in the car

(evide nce show ed Tra cy Birkholz wa s s ea t ed in the back se at behind the driver) ; the fac t that when first a pproac hed by

the sherif

f’s de puty afte r the ac ci d en t (and be fore sedation), B irkholz repeate dly stated he ha d not be en driving , even thoug h no question was aske d reg ardingthat issue; and the fa ct that when the car was turne d back over onto its wheels afte r the
a c c ide nt, B ow e n w a s in

the fr on t pa sse ng e r s e a t. Birkholz’s def

ense w as base d on his argument that Bow en wa s driving the ca r. Evidence prese nted at trial included: t estimony that Birkholz suffe red a n injury to his leg thre e day s befor e the
acc ident, and that he had bee n on crutc hes on those day s and unable to drive; testimony that Bow en
was see n driving Birkholz’s ca r the day befor e the acc ident; e vidence that the driver ’s seat positi on
wa s to o fa r ba c k fo r B ir

kh olz t o h ave be e n d

ri vin g ; e xpe rt

te sti mony

by an a c c ide nt r e c on str

uc tio nis t explaining how the f

orce of the a ccide nt c ould ha ve resulted in B irkholz, his wife, and B owen e nding up in a “sa

ndwich” suc h that Birkholz was on top and w as the most acc essible from the driver ’s side window follo wi n g t h e a cc i d en t ; t es t i m o n y re gar d i n g Bi rk h o l z ’s h i s t o ry o f b eing a re sponsible drinker
and dr ive r; and a sh ow ing that Bo we n’ s leg a l bloo d- a lc oh ol le ve l w a s c on sis te nt w iththe de fe ns e t h eo ry t h at Bo we nwa s t h e d es i gn at eddri v er fo r t h e e v en i n g. B ir kh olz’ s f ir st i ssu e on

a pp e a l st e ms f

ro m th e int

roduct io n o f a

ph oto g ra phduri ngc ro ssexamination of the defe nse’s e x pert witness, ac ci d en t rec onstructionist Max Scott. Scott gave testimony based on oc cupant kinematics, or what ha ppens t o i n d i viduals in a vehicle during an
a c c ide nt. I nf

or matio n is gathe re d f

ro m me a sure me nts a t th e sc e ne , w itn e sse s, and e vid e nc e , a

nd is used to show what ha

ppened to c ar oc cupants duringan ac cident. Duringthe State’s cr oss-ex am i n at i on of Scott, it int roduce d an enla rg ement of a

picture pr e vio us ly int

ro du c e d, de pic tin g B ow e n a ft e r he ha d be e n take n fr om the c ar and la id on a sh eet.04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 6- Th e e nla rg e d pho to fo c us e d on Bo we n’ s tor so , an d sho we d a fr a g me nt of a se a t bel t dr a pe d a c ro ss his chest. Pictures of the car after the acc ident reve al t hat t he seat belt frag ment somehow ende d up on the hea dliner of the car; both sides ag ree that someone must have taken it off B owen’ s body and thrown it in the car . Duringthe middle of the trial, the State w ent to the impound lot and collected that se a t be lt f

ra g me nt f ro m th e ri g ht fr on t hea dli ne r of the c ar. I t is un c on te ste d that the se a t be lt fr a g me nt d e pic te d o n B ow e n in the pic tur e is the same se a t be lt f ra g me nt t hat ha d b e e n thro wn

on to the ri g ht f ro nt h e a dli ne r o f the c ar an d bro ug ht to co ur t by the State fo r i ntr od

uc tio n a s a

n e xhibi t, and that the se at belt fra g ment had one “ belt stop button” on it. On direc t examination, S cott had testi fied that the frag ment found i n the ca r wa s part of the rig ht front passeng er se at belt bec ause of its location in the ca

r. Afte r introducingthe photog raph of B owen with the be lt across his che st, the State beg an dra wing the conne ction betwee n the belt on Bowen and Scott’s testimony that the belt was f

rom the passe ng er side, the ref ore r einforc ing the Stat e’ s t h eory

that Birkholz was the dr iver. How ever , upon seeingthe seat belt frag ment and the
e nh anc e d p ho togra

phin c ourt , Sc ott

te sti fi e d th a t he ha d be e n wr on g . He argue d that the se a t be lt fra g ment and the be lt seen on Bowen in the e nhance d photogr aph we re one and the same, and that the belt was f

rom the driver ’s side of the car , based on the orientation of the belt acr oss B owen a s seen in the enhanc ed photogr aph. Scott f urther note d that the fra g ment on Bow en had one belt stop button, as did the passeng er side se at belt found intac t in the car and int ro d u ce d i n to evidence throug h a photog raph. W h i l e t h ere was discussion of the numbe r of be lt stop but tons on the seat belts, it was not conclusively established during testimony whether the front se at belts ea ch had one or two buttons. This te stimony was the last of the trial, and both side s rested on a F riday afte rnoon.04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 7- When court re convene d for c losing a rguments on Monday , Birkholz soug ht to reopen the evidenc e. B irk h o lz ex plained that he ha d been sur prised the pr evious Fr iday with unexpected developments in the c ase when the State introduced the enlar g ed photo of Bow en’s torso with the seat be lt. He noted that the e nlarg ed photog raph, tog ether with the State’s continued intimation that the front se at belts could have eac h had two belt stop buttons, led him to do further re sear ch over the
wee kend. As a

result, he soug ht to reopen the evidenc e to introduce photogr aphs of ne w and use d
car s of the same model as the one involved in the acc ident; he also soug ht to introduce a r eplac ement
se a tbe lt f or B ir kh olz’ s c ar. Th e ph oto g ra ph s and re pla c e me nt be lt s ho we d th a t th e se a tbe lts ha d o nly one belt stop button. The State re sponded to Bir kholz’s mot ion by

indicating it would not argu e in closing argument that the s eatbe lts had two belt stop buttons. Birkholz arg ued, howe ver, that the point had alre ady been introduc ed by

the State during cross-e x amination of his expert witness. When the court
a sk e d th e State wh a t it

wo uld do if it all ow e d to Bir

kh olz to re op e n, the State re pli e d th a t it wo uld
rec all its e x pert witness who was in Colleg e Station. The c ourt asked B irkholz whether this issue was important enough to cause a dela y i n t h e t ri al so that the State’s expert could be r eca lled. B ir kh olz a ns we re d th a t he did no t un de rs tand the Sta te ’s ne e d f

or its e xpe rt wi tne ss, a s th e State sa id it d id n ot b e lie ve the numbe r o f b e lt s top butto ns wa s si g nif ic ant. B ir kh olz s ou g ht t o re op e n by arguin g that the ne w phy sic a l evi de nc e sh ow ing on ly on e “ be lt stop” button per seat belt w as unequivoca l phy sical proof of Birkholz’s innocenc e. Birkholz argued this was a critica l issue in dispute, and he had exhibi ts that w ould inc ontrovertibly establish that the belt o nB o w e nw a s th e dr iv e r - s id e s e a t b e lt
. T h e p r o f f e r e d e v id e n c e in c lu d e d

th e photogr aph showin g th e p o rti o no f

th e p a s s e n g e r - s id e s e a t b e lt w it hth e s to p b u tt o ns ti ll in ta c t i nth e w r e c k ed04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

1 ... T h e re c o rd ind ic a te s tha t fo r va rio u s re a so n s, the inv e stiga tio n a t t h e sc e n e o f t h e a c c id e n t wa s la c k ing in s ome r es pec t s . O n - s ce n e mea s u r eme n t s t ak en w er e v er y ba s i c; a di ag r am t ak en di d n ot a g r ee w i t h t h e sequenc e of e v e n ts; an d the re w a s n o tec h n ic a l i n v e stiga tio n o f the v e h ic le to d e te rm ine the c o n ta c t a n d ind u c e d d a m a g e inc u rr e d to t he vehi cl e. N o i nvent o ry was t aken o f m i ss i ng pa rt s, s uch as head res t s and seat b el t s. T he seat be l t f ragm ent at i ss ue was not d i scovered earl i er by t he d ef ense b ecause i t was t aken o f f B o wen’ s b o d y and t hrow n onto t he head l i ner i n t he c a r w re c k a g e , ra the r th a n b a g g e d a n d e n te re d into e v id e n c e . T he m ed i cal exam i ner cam e t o t he scene and survey ed i t whi l e t he car was s t i l l on i t s roo f
. H o wever, be f

o re t he bo di es wer e e xt r act ed f r om t he veh i cl e, s he was cal l ed away t o a hom i ci de whe n f our p ol i cemen wer e sh ot at an ot her lo c a tio n . In a d d iti o n , t h e re w a s so m e c o n fus io n b e c a u se o n e m e d ic a l e x a m ine r listed B o w e n a s the d riv e r o f t h e c a r; this was l at er changed at t he reque st of t he Stat e. T he D ep ut y C hi ef M ed i cal E xam i ner t est i f i ed t hat t he p o l i cem en shoo t i ng re su lted in a “les s c o m p le te inv e stiga tio n b y o u r in v e stiga to r th a n w o u ld ha v e b e e n id e a l, b u t t h a t ha p p e n s.”

- 8- car , which by proce ss of elim ination proved the seat belt fra g ment with the “belt stop” button found on Bow en wa s from the drive r’s side. The court de nied Birkholz’s motion to reope n, and re ceive d the exhibit s offe red into evide nce f or purpose s of the rec ord only
. Consequently the jury was ne ver prese nted with this evidence
. 1 Anal y sis Pee k v. State, 106 S.W .3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), established the c urre nt standard f or analy sis of

motion to reopen er

rors. In Pee k , the court upheld the appe llate cour t’s conclusion that the trial cour

t did not abuse its discretion in denying a m otion to reope n; howeve r, the c ircumstance s of the c ase a

nd the weig ht of the evide nce the proponent sou gh t t o i n troduce distinguish it from B ir kh olz’ s c a se . T he Pe e ks we re c ha rg e d w ithinj ur

y to a c hil d, and

so ug ht t o r e op e n th e c a se wi th evidenc e of me dical re cords f rom a hospital trip. Pee k, 106 S.W .3d at 74 (citations omitted). The trial court de nied their motion to reopen, a s evidenc e of the hospital trip had already been a dmitted
a n d t h e m e d i c a l r e c o r d s o f f e r e d n o t h i n g m a t e r i a l t o d i s p r o v e t h a tt h e P e e k s c o m m i t t e d t h e i n j u r y. Id. The a ppellate c ourt aff

irmed, noting that “[i] f the de fendan t seeks to re open, ther e is abuse of discretion only if the evidenc e would have materia lly chang ed the case in the defe nd an t ’s favor.” Id. Af te r t he a pp e llate c ourt

c on c lud e d th a t th e me dic a l r e c or ds wo uld “ pr ob a bly no t ha ve mate ri a lly
c ha ng e d th e re su lt i n [th e Pe e ks ’] f avo r, ” the Pe e ks a

pp e a le d th e mate ri a l cha

ng e te st, a s at th a t ti me04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 9- Texas appellate c ourts disag ree d on the appr opriate te st. Id. at 74-75. The Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls affirmed the appe llate cour t, adopting the materia l chang e test for application to motions to reope n. Id. at 79. Although only a few Texas c ases have a pplied the Pee k

analy sis, an opinion issued by our sister court in Dallas provides a similar sce nario to B irkholz’s. Se e Re e v es v . S tate , 113 S.W .3d 791 (Tex. App.––Dallas 2003, no pe t.). Reeve s was convict ed o f p o s session with intent to deliver
coca ine. Id. at 792. At trial, the State e ntere d into evidence photogr aphs which pur ported to depic t Reeve s’s bathroom wit h incriminating evidenc e on the counter. Id. a t7 9 3
. D u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y, Reeve s denied that t h e b athroom represe nted in the photog raphs wa s his. Id. Reeve s, who had photogr aphs he w anted to introduce in or der to pr ove the discrepa ncy , filed a motion to reopen the evidenc e bef

ore the j u ry ch ar ge wa s re ad. Id. The trial c ourt denied his motion to reopen. Id. Re e ve s a pp e a le d his su

bs e qu e nt c on vic tio n, and the a pp e llate c ourt re ve rs e d a

nd re mand e d th e c a se to the trial court f

or fur ther proc eeding s. Id. at 792. The c ourt in Ree ves noted t hat t he Tex as C ourt of Criminal Appea ls in Pee k did no t in dic a te wh e the r a se pa rate ha rm ana ly sis sh ou ld be c on du c te d af te r ap pli c a tio n of t

he mate ri a lity

ana ly sis ; conseque ntly , the cour

t decided to a

pply both standards. See id. at 794-95. The court re fer ence d the fo llo wi ngha

rm ana ly sis a s st a te d b y

the Court

of Cr imi na l App e a ls: For claims of non-co n stitut ional err or, we , like the Supreme Court, hold that “a conviction should not be overtur ned unless, afte r ex amining the rec ord as a whole, a c ourt c on c lud e s th a t an e rr or

may have ha d ‘s ub sta

nti a l inf lue nc e ’ on

the ou tc ome of the proc eeding .” Put another w ay , if the re viewingcourt ha s “a g rave doubt” that the re sult was fre e fr om the substantial influence of the err or, then it must treat the e rr or a s if it d id. “ Gr ave do ub t” me ans that “ in t he jud g e ’s mi nd , th e matte r i s so evenly balanc ed that he f

eels himself in virtual equipoise a s to the harmlessne ss of the e rr or .” Thus , “ in c a se s o f gra ve do ub t as to harm less ne ss t he pe tit ion e r m

us t win.”04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 10- Id. at 795 ( quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S
. W.3d 633, 637-38 (Tex. Crim . App. 2002) (f ootnotes omitted)). SeeT EX . R. A PP . P
. 44 .2 (b ); T EX . R. E V ID . 103(a) (er ror may not be pre dicated upon a
ru lin g wh ic h a dmi ts o r e xclu de s e vid e nc e un le ss a su bs tanti a l r ig ht o f t

he pa rt y is a ff e c te d) ; se e als o King v. State, 953 S.W .2d 266, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A harmless err or an al y s i s requires consideration of all evidenc e admitted at trial and the re cord a s a whole. Morales v. State, 32 S.W .3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). I np e r f o r mi n g the Pee k an aly sis, the court in Re e v es no te d th e fo llo wi ng : th e mot ion to
re op e n w a s ti me ly ; th e a

pp e lla nt w a s p re se nt a

nd re a dy to te sti fy a

bo ut t he pr of fe re d p ho togra

ph s; and the trial court was clea rly informed the testimony and photogra phs would show that the room de pic te d in

the State ’s ph oto g ra

ph s w a s n ot t

he same a s that dep ic te d in th e a pp e lla nt’ s p ho togra

ph s. Ree ves, 11 3 S. W.3 d at 79 5. Th e c ourt a lso no te d th a t “ the e vid e nc e wa s mat e ri a l and bo re dir e c tly
on a ce ntral issue in the ca se . . . . [a ] l t houg h appellant ha d testified to these discr epanc ies, the proff ere d photogr aphs we re more t han relevant, they would have made a differ ence in the case .
. . .” Id. at 795-96. The court subsequ en t l y d et ermined that the proff ere d evidenc e would have materia lly

chang ed the c ase in Ree ves’s fa vor, and the err or in excluding the e vidence by denial of the motion to reope n constituted harmful err or, as the rema ining e vidence ag ainst Reeves w as not enoug h to support a conviction. Id. at 797. Thus, t he denial of the motion to reopen the evidenc e aff ecte d Reeve s’s substantial rig hts. Id. I n th e ins tant c a se , th e tr ial court ’s de nia l of B ir kh olz’ s mo tio n to re op e n a ff e c te d h is
su bs tanti a l r ig hts in muc h th e same wa y a s Re e ve s. As wi th R e e ve s, B ir kh olz m a de the mot ion

to reope n in a timely fashion, and had the evidenc e in ha nd at the time the motion was made. The trial
c ourt wa s c le arl y

inf or me d that th e e vid e nc e be ingof fe re d b y B ir kh olz w ou ld s ho w that th e se a t be lt04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 11- fra g ment found l ying acr oss Bow en was in fac t from the driver’ s side, substantially incre asing the likelihood that the jury

would acc ept B irkholz’s arg ument t h at Bo we n was the driver. I f a jury prese nted with the evidenc e of the enlar g ed picture of B owen a nd the seat belt specifications of the
car in question ag ree s with the contention that the seat belt drape d acr oss Bo we n wa s from the dr ive r’ s si de , th e e vid e nc e c ou ld p ote nti a lly pr ov e B ir

kh ol z wa s n ot b e hin d th e wh e e l du ri ngthi s
acc ident. As such, the e vidence was materia l a nd bore dire ctly

on a ce ntral issue in the ca se–whe ther Birkholz was drivingthe ca r involved in the ac cident. See P eek , 106 S .W.3d at 78. I f the jury construed the evidenc e to i n d i cate that Bow en wa s the driver , Birkholz could not have be en convicted f

or three counts of intox ication manslaug hter. Ba sed on this analy sis, the require ments of the Pee k materia l chang e an al y s i s and har m analy sis were met. Pee k, 10 6 S. W.3 d at 78 ; Bu rn e tt , 88 S.W .3d at 637-38. Conseque ntly , the trial court abused its discretion when it denie d Birkholz’s motion to reopen. See P eek , 106 S.W .3d at 79. Be cause Birkholz’s substantial rig hts were aff ecte d when he was de nied the opportunity to defe nd himself with this evidenc e, re versible e rror exis ts. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 44 .2 (b ) ( re ve rs ibl e e rr or e xists in t he re fu sa l to re op e n if

a su bs tanti a l r ig ht o f a

pa rt y is a ff e c te d) ; Bu rn e tt , 88 S.W.3 d at 6 38 (“ in
c a se s o f gra

ve do ub t a s to ha

rm le ssn e ss t

he pe tit ion e r m

us t w in” ). Ac c or di ngly , Birkh olz’ s f ir st issue is sustained. F A C TUA L S UF F I CI E NCY Be cause we sustain B irkholz’s first issue, we nee d not rea ch the f actua l s u ff

i ci en cy issue. Howeve r, we note that the State ar g ued the tria l court did not abuse its d i s cr eti on in denying the motion to reopen bec ause the weig ht of the e vidence was so hea vily ag ainst Birkholz, theref

ore, the issue of whe ther or not the se at belt found on B owen i ndicated B owen wa s the driver was not04
- 06
- 00 25 1- CR, 04
- 06
- 00 25 2- CR a n d 0 4- 06
- 00 25 3- CR

- 12- mate ri a l to the c a se . We dis a g re e . T he e vid e nc e wh ic h w a s d e nie d a dmi ssi on un de r t he mot ion

to reope n could have had a diminish i n g ef fect on the evidenc e ag ainst Birkholz, and could ha ve
a f f e c t e d t h e j u r

y ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e w e i g h t a f f o r d e d c o n t r a d i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y . T h e mot ion to reope n was a separ ate and distinct issue prese nted to our cour t, and prope r eva luation nece ssitated distinguis h i n g it from the fa ctual suff iciency issue. Neve rtheless, be cause we sustain B irkholz’s first issue, it is unnecessar y for us to addr ess B irkholz’s factual suff iciency challeng e. C ONCL US I ON Th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu sed it s disc re tio n w he n it de nie d B ir

kh olz’ s mo tio n to re op e n w ith materia l, potentially dispositi ve evidenc e. Consequently , we reve rse the trial court’s judgme nt and
re mand the c a se to t

he tr ia l c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

PUB L I SH