## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0379- 09

BR I A N TH O M A S K I R SC H , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FI RST CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY C OCHRAN , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . P RI CE , J ., f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS , J ., j oi ne d. OP I NI ON A ju ryc o n v icte d a p p e llan t o f d riv in g w h ile in to x ica ted (D W I) a n d se n ten c e d h im to 45 day s i n j ai l
. A p p ell an t co n te nds t hatt he cour t of appe al s er r ed i n uphol di ng t he t r i al

c o u rt’s s u b m iss io n o f a ju ryc h a rg e o n p e r se in to x ica tio n b yh a v in g a n a lco h o l co n ten t in h is bl o o d o f 0
. 0 8 o r mor e whe n t h e e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s b l o o d a l c o h o l l e v e l was admi t t edKirsch Pag e 2

Ap pe lla nt’ s so le gro un d f

or re vie w s tate s, 1 The F irst Court of Appea ls erre d in permitting a jury charg e for

per seintox ication when e videnceof appe llant’s blood alcohol level wa s admitted pursuant to a limit ing instruc tion and therewas no e videncethat appellant wa s intox icated pe r se at the time hewas drivingthe automobile. p u rsua n t t o a li m it ing instructio n . W e a g ree w ith the c o u rto f a p p ea ls t h at (1) the jud g e’s 1

o ra l li m iti n g in stru c tio n w a s im p ro p e r, b u t ( 2 ) th e to tality o f th e e v id e n c e su f f ice d to p e rm it t h e j u r y t o c o n c l u d e t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d a n a l c o h o l c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f 0
. 0 8 o r mo r e a t t h e t i me h e w a s d ri v in g . W e th e re f o re a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls
. I. A t ap p ro x im a tely 3 :0 0 a .m . o n M a y 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , a p p e llan t, a H a rris C o u n tyd e p u ty
s her i ff, w as i nvol ved i n an aut om obi l e ac ci dentw i t h a t r act or - t r ai l er in n o rt h H ous t on. A ppel l anthad bee n w or ki ng an extr a j ob, pat r ol l ing t he Pi ne Shadow s nei ghbor hood t hat ni ght i n a pat r ol car . A s ap pel l antdr ove s out hbound i n t he r i ght

- hand l ane of t he fr eew ay fr ont age r oad, J es s e G om ez, i n hi s 18- w heel t r act or - t r ai l er , w as ahea d of appe l l ant , pr epar i ng to m ak e a ri g h t- h an d turn at t h e A ir tex in tersection
. B ec au se o f th e size o f h is ve h icl e, M r. G om ez made a w i de r i ght t ur n fr om t he ce nt erl ane. H e t es t i fi ed t hat , b ef o re turni ng, he chec ked hi s m i r r or s and s aw appel l ant ’ s pat r ol car about 300 fee t behi nd hi m . D eci di ng t hat t he pat r ol carw as a s afe di s t ance aw ay , M r . G om ez t ur ned on hi s r i ght

- t ur n s i gnal , s l ow ed t o appr oxi m at el y15 m
. p. h. , and began hi s t ur n. M i d- t ur n, M r . G om ez fel t an i m pact t o t he

s i de- r earpor t i on of t he t r ai l er t hat caus ed hi s 78, 000- pound t r ai l ert o s ki d s i dew ay s . A ft er th e tra iler c a m e to a r e st, M r. G o m e z h u rrie d to in v e stig a te th e c a u se o f th e im p a c t,Kirsch Pag e 3

Tec hnically , it is an “eve nt data re trieval module.” 2 di s cover ed appe l l antuncons ci ous i n hi s pat r ol car , and ca l l ed 911. R es pondi ng par amedi cs t ook appel l ant t o B en T aub H os pi t al for t r eat m ent of a he ad i nj ur y . T heydi d not not i ce a nys i gns of i nt oxi cat i on or i m pai r m ent on appel l ant beca us e he

w a s u n c o n sc io u s, b u t o n e p a ra m e d ic s m e lled a lco h o l in a p p e llan t’s b lo o d . A t th e h o sp ital, appel l antr ega ined cons ci ous nes s , but behave d bel l i ger ent l y . E m er gency - r oom per s onnel des cr i bed appe l l antas “l et har gi c, s l ur r i ng, uncooper at i ve, and unr es pons i ve. ” H i s m edi cal

recor ds st at ed that “up on arr i val, pati ent w as ob v io u sl yi ntoxi cat ed. ” T ho se r ecords al so des cr i bed appe l l antas combat i ve, des t r uct i ve, and exhi b it ing p o or i m pul s e contr ol , and

re v e a led th a t th e p h y sic ian h a d p e rm itt e d a “ 4 -p o in t re stra in t” f o r “ u p to 8 h o u r s to tal if pat i ent[exhi bi t ed] unacc ept abl e beha vi or . ” D r . B ecke r , t he emer gency cent er - chi ef, t hought t hat appel l ant ’ s aggr es s i ve beha vi or
w a s th e re su lt o f a lco h o l c o n su m p tio n ra th e r th a n h e a d tra u m a b e c a u se a p p e llan t se e m e d to under s t and, but i nt ent i onal l yd isr egar d, ques t i ons , r eques t s , and comm ands
. D r . B ecke r
or der ed a bl ood- al cohol t es t at4: 28 a. m . , w h ic h r evea l ed a s erum - al cohol conce nt r at i on of 0 .1 2 3 , th a t tr a n s la te d to a b lo o d -a lc o h o l le v e l ( B A C ) o f 0 .1 0
. I nves t i gat i ng offi cer s dow nl oaded i nfor m at i on fr om t he patr ol car ’ s “bl ack box” –a d e v ice th a t sto re s d a ta a b o u t a c a r’s f u n c tio n s fo r fiv e se c o n d s p rio r t o a ir-b a g d e p lo y m e n t. 2 T he dat a s how ed t hatappel l antw as dr i vi ng 69 m
. p. h. four s econds befor e t he col l i s i on and 67 m
. p. h. one s econd be for e t he cr as h. T he post ed spee d l i m i t w as 50 m
. p. h. T he patr ol carKirsch Pag e 4

Se eMa ta v . S

tate , 46 S.W .3d 902, 908-09 (Te x . Crim. App. 2001) (“Re trograde 3 extrapolation is the computation back in time of the blood-a lcohol level–that is, the estimation of thele ve l at th e tim e of

drivi ngba se d o n a

te st r e su lt f

ro m so me late r t ime ” ; no tin gtha t a particula r absor ption rate depends on a va riety of fa ctors, including , inte r a lia , food in the stomach, g ender , weight, ag e, amount consume d, and period of consumption). Th e c oll oq

uy at th at he ari ngwa s a s f

oll ow s: 4 State : At

thi s p oint in

tim e , I do n’ t f e e l th at I havesu ff ic ie nt e xtra

po latio n f a c ts t o perf orm the re trogradeextrapolation. . . . De fe ns e : With out it
. . . w e mov e thea dmi ssibil ity of any of thee vid e nc e is i rr e le va

nt. Court: Well, he’s allowed to put in a test re sult to show that alcohol was somewhat

involved, Ibelieve. . . . State : Judg e , b oth theSte wa

rt and [Me c hle r] c a se [s] havebe e n r e c e ntl y de c ide d a

nd a ll the evidenc e shows that alc ohol has bee n inge sted and a lso to show loss of normal us e of me nta l and

phy sic a l f

a c ult ie s. Court: [There will] . . . have to be a limiting instruction . . . if it does comeinto evidence
.

So, theCourt

wi ll g ivea

lim iti ngins tr

uc tio n at th e tim e tha

t’ s a dmi tte d, if

it i s admitted. State : Sur e . I

do n’ t ha veany pr ob le m w iththa

t. I anti c ipate theDe fe ns e is g oin gto c a ll witnesses that will g ive me extrapolation fac ts. But I ’ll cer tainly approa ch the Court be fo rethat. l efts ki d m ar ks on t he pave m ent , but t he bl ack box i ndi cat ed no br ake a ppl i cat i on, s ugges t i ng t hatappel l anthad appl i ed hi s br akes l es s t han one s econd be for e i m pact
. D eput i es al s o found tw o S m ir n o f

f v o d k a b o ttle c a p s in th e p a tr o l c a r. A ppel l antfi l ed a pr etr i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he bl ood- t es t r es ul t s and ar gued t hatt he St at e coul d not pr oduce r et r ogr ade e xt r apol at i on t es t i m ony . T he t r i al cour t deni ed t he mot i on 3
t o s uppr es s , but s ai d t hat he i nt ended t o admi t t he B A C
- t es t r es ul t w i t h a l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on unt i l t he St at e off

er ed ext r apol at i on evi dence
. 4
W hen t he St at e st ar t ed t o el i ci t t es t i m ony about appel l ant ’ s B A C
- t es t r es ul t dur i ng t he trial, th e ju d g e d isc u ss e d h is p ro p o se d lim iti n g in stru c tio n o u tsid e th e p re se n c e o f th e ju ry :Kirsch Pag e 5

C our t : I t hi nk i t ’ s w i s e t o i ns t r uct t hem at t he t i m e t hat i t comes i n t hat i t i s offe r ed for

l i m i t ed purpos es at t hi s t i m e. I t ’ s cer t ai nl yadmi s s i bl e on t he i s s ue of w het her o r n o t t h e i n d i v i d u a l h a d i n g e s t e d a l c o h o l
. . . a n d i t ’ s i n t h e i r s y s t e m. St at e: I ’ d pr efe r j us t t o keep i t s i m pl e and j us t t o t hatpar t i cul art i m e bec aus e I t hi nk

t hi ngs m aychange
. C our t : O f cour s e. St a t e : B ut I ’ m not goi ng t o b e a b l e t o a s k y o u l a t e r o n t o c o mme n t a n d s a y , Now

th in g s a re c h a n g e d ; n o w y o u c a n u s e th e re s u lts
. C our t : I w ant one i ns t r uct i on t hat t hey can go w i t h t hat w il l fi t w it h the w ri t t en

i ns t r uct i ons t hatt hey ’ l l getatt he cl os e of t r i al , t hat w i l l i ncl ude t he i ns t r uct i on t hats ay s t hatt he St at e has t o pr ove i t bey ond a r easo n ab l e doubtt hatal cohol le v e l w a s .0 8 o r g re a te r a t th e tim e o f d ri v in g . . . . St at e: O kay
. So t hen y ou’ l l s ay at t hi s par t i cul ar poi nt i n t he t r i al , t hi s evi dence i s for

t he – C our t : L i m i t ed purpos e of s how i ng t hat t he i ndi vi dual w h o w as t es t ed had i nges t ed

a lco h o l at s o m e tim e p rio r to th e tes t. St at e: A l l r i ght
. W i t h t he pr ovi s o t hat t he C our t i s adamant t hat t he j ur yunder s t ands

that it ’s at t h is pa rt icular ti m e in th e tri al, that’s w h at i t’ s fo r. C o u rt: R ig h t. A n d sa yn o th in g m o re th a n th a t. Is th a t ac c e p tab le to y o u a ll?
A ll ag re e d . W h e n th e ju ryre e n ter e d , the ju d g e g a v e th e f o llo w in g lim iti n g in stru c tio n : M ember s of t he jury , I’ m goi ng t o t el l y ou now t hatt he r es ul t i s off – w i l l be r ece i ved byt he C o u rt fo r t he l i m i t ed purpos e of s how i ng t hatt he i ndi vi dual w ho w as t es t ed had i nges t ed al cohol onl y at s om e poi nt befor e t he t i m e of t he t es t
. T hati s t he onl ypurpos e t hatw i l l be off ere d an d the onl ypurpos e for w h ich y o u sh o u ld re c e iv e it at th is tim e in th is tria l.
Th e Be n Ta u b l a b o r a t o r y s u p e r v i s o r t h e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t ’ s BAC l e v e l wa s 0
. 1 0 s o me
e ig h tym in u tes a f

ter th e a c c id e n t. D ur i ng a hea r i ng on appel l ant ’ s m ot i on for di r ect ed ver di ct , t he t r i al cour t expr es s ed

conce r n aboutw het hert her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor t a c h arge on t he “pe r s e”Kirsch Pag e 6

Under T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 49.0(2)( B) , “‘I ntox icated’ means: havingan alc ohol 5 conce ntration of 0.08 or more .” This B AC level is measure d by a blood, bre ath, or urinetest. Concerningthe per

se def inition of int ox ication, the trial judg e stated, Court : I ’m

c on c e rn e d a

bo ut t he rebe ingsu ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc eto s up po rt a g e ne ra l ve rdic t if the test para graph is in and g oes in the application paragraph in the jury instructions, beca

use thereis no evidenceof extrapolation back to the time of drivi ng . I do n’ t se e any

e vid e nc e at a ll.
. . . I ’m

c on c e rn e d –

if thejur y we reto come ba ck with a guilty

verdic t, we would not know which pa ragraph the y

relied on . And on .0 8 p ara gra

ph , I do n’ t se e e no ugh e vid e nc e on the.0 8 at th is p oint to show that he ha d an .08 at the time [of the off ense]. . . . State : Iun de rs tand wh at your c on c e rn

is. Yo u k

no w, thec a se law i s p re tty c le ar t hat I do n’ t ha veto e xtra

po late to g e t th e br e ath t e st r e su lts in o r t hebr e ath t e st para graph. So, we ’ve ha d this hull abaloo in the a ppellate c ourts for a

bout four or five year s now, that Ibelieve ha s been put to re st with Ma ta and Mec hler and Stewar t , that the bre ath test result come s [i n]. W e g et to submit the entireloss of no rm a l us e and

.0 8 p ara gra

phto t hejur y . And the y do n’ t ha veto e le c t, t

he y jus t g et to decidethe evidenc e. . . . C o urt : I j u s tw antt o b e s ur e o f th atb e f o r e w e g o f

o r w ar d t o m o r r o w , o k ay? State: Sure. I ’ll g o and find those. The pe rtinent portion of the a pplication para graph r ead: 6 . . . if you believe f

rom the evide nce be yond a re asonabledoubt that the Def endant . . . did while intox icated, na mely , not havingthe normal use of his mental and phy sical fa culties due to the introduction of a lcohol in to his body , operate a motor vehicle in a

public place ; OR I f you believe f

rom the evide nce be yond a re asonabledoubt that the Def endant . . . did wh ileint oxic ate d, name ly , h avin gan a lc oh ol c on c e ntr atio n o f at le a st 0 .0 8 in his blood, operate a

motor vehicle in a

public place , you will find the Defe ndant gu i l ty. defi ni t i on of i nt oxi cat i on. A ppel l antar gued t hat , gi ven t he l i m i t i ng instruct i on, t her e w as 5 i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o per m i t a convi ct i on on t he pers e def i ni t ion
. T he j udge deni ed appel l ant ’ s m ot i on and cha r ged t he j ur yon bot h s t atut or ydefi ni t i ons of i nt oxi cat i on. 6
D u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, th e iss u e o f h o w th e ju ryc o u ld c o n sid e r th e B A C -te st re su lt

ar os e aga i n. D efe ns e couns el s t at ed: I hat e – I don’ t w ant t o t al k t oo m uch on t hi s bl ood t es t beca us e . . . t he machi neKirsch Pag e 7

Kir sc h v . S tate , 276 S.W .3d 579, 589 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2008). 7 Id. at 591. 8 can make mi s t akes
. . . . A nd, agai n, t hati s s t i l l an hourand a ha l f l at erand t her e’ s no evi dence of bl ood al cohol conce nt r at i on at t he t i m e of dr i vi ng. A nd y ou cannot m ake t he l eap of fai t h t her e. . . . R emem ber t he J ud g e’s li m i t i ng in s tr u c tio n a s to w h e n y o u g o t th a t e v id e n c e ? Y o u c a n ’t g o a n y w h e re e ls e . I n r ebut t al , t he pr os ecut or offe r ed a di ffe r enti nt erpr et at i on: L e t’s fo c u s o n th e sp e c if ics . T h e in stru c tio n th a t y o u g o t w h e n [ th e B A C -te st re su lt] came i n, t hatw as gi ven t o y ou t o cons i dert hatpar ti cul arevi dence att hatpar t i cul ar t i me i n t h e t r i a l
. T h a t i n s t r u c t i o n i s g o n e n o w.
A ppel l antobj ect ed, not i ng t hatt he t r i al j udge had notw i t hdr aw n t he or al l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on; the tr ial judge agr eed, expl ai ni ng, “I t ’ s not i n t he w r i t t en i ns t r uct i ons , but i t i s an or al i ns t r uct i on t hatt he j ur y i s s t i l l r equi r ed t o abi de by
. ” T he j ur y r etur ned a gener al ver di ctof g u ilty. O n d ir e c t a p p e a l, a p p e lla n t c la im e d , in ter a lia , t hat t he t r i al j udge er r ed i n s ubm i t t i ng j ur yi ns t r uct i ons on t he pers e def i ni t i on of i nt oxi cat i on. H e ar gued t hat , beca us e t he bl oodal cohol e v idence w as admi t t ed w i t h an i ns t r uct i on t hatper m i t t ed t he j ur yt o cons i dert he evi dence fort he l i m i t ed purpos e of s how i ng t hatappel l anti nges t ed al cohol onl yats om e poi nt p ri o r t o the test, the ju rysh o u ld n o t h av e be en ch arg ed o n p er se intox icati o n b ec au se th ere
w as i ns u ff

ici entevi dence t o pr ove appe l l ant ’ s B A C att he t i m e he dr ove. T he cour t of 7

a p p e a ls c o n c lu d e d th a t th e ju ryc h a rg e w a s p ro p e r, alth o u g h th e lim iti n g in stru c tio n w a s n o t. 8Kirsch Pag e 8

T EX . P EN . C ODE § 49.01(2). 9 See State v . Mec hler , 1 5 3 S
. W
. 3 d 4 3 5 , 4 4 1 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g State v. 10 Mec hler , 123 S.W .3d 449, 456 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003)). Kirsch , 276 S.W .3d at 589-91. 11 Stewart v. State, 129 S.W .3d 93, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 12 I I . U ndert he T exas D W I s t atut e, i nt oxi cat i on m aybe pr oven i n ei t herof t w o w ay s : ( 1) l os s of nor m al us e of ment al or phy s i cal fac ul t i es or ( 2) al cohol conce nt r at i on in the bl ood, br eat h, or ur i ne of 0. 08 or m or e. T he fi r s t defi ni t i on i s t he “i m pai r m ent ” t heor y , w hi l e t he 9

se c o n d is th e “ p e r se ” th e o ry . T h e ya re n o t m u tu a llye x c lu siv e , an d , as lo n g a s th e re is evi dence t hatw oul d s uppor t bot h defi ni t i ons , bot h t heor i es ar e s ubm i t t ed i n t he j ur ychar ge. 10
W e fi r s t addr es s t he admi s s i bi l i t y and pr obat i ve val ue of B A C
- t es t evi dence and t hen th e p ro p ri e ty o f

th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s p e r s e in to x ic a tio n c h a rg e a n d th e lim itin g in s tr u c tio n . A . A d m i ssi b i l i ty o f B A C -t est result s. 1 . T h e la w . T he court of appe al s properl y analy zed several recent cases i n w h ich w e h e ld t hati nt oxi l y zerB A C r es ul t s w er e admi s s i bl e and pr obat i ve of pe r s e i n t o x i cat i on even w i t hout

r et r ogr ade e xt r apol at i on t es t i m ony . I n S tew a rt v. State , t he d efen dan t t oo k an i ntoxi l y zer t est 11 appr oxi m at el y80 m i nut es aft ers he had be en dr i vi ng. T he t r i al cour t admi t t ed t he r es ul t of 12 0. 154 as s om e evi dence t hatherB A C w as over the then l egal l i m i t of 0. 10 w hi l e dr i vi ng. H ow ever , t he cour t of appe al s r eas oned that , byadmi t t i ng t he br eath t es t , t he cour t hadKirsch Pag e 9

Id. at9 6 (c i t i n g Stewart v . S tate , 1 03 S.W. 3d

48 3, 48 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n Anto nio 13 2003)). Id.

14 Id. (footnotes omitted). 15 Id. at 97. We noted: 16 Th e br e ath t e st r e su lts we repie c e s in thee vid e nti ary

puzzle fo r t

hejur y to consider in de terminingwhether Stewart wa s intox icated at the time she drove. The jury had other evidenc e to dec ide that issue, such a s the arr estingoffice r’s testimony about Stewar

t’s drivingpatterns be forehe pulled her over, theresults of Stewart’s f

ield sobriety

tests, Stewart’s a dmission t o the offic er that she had a c ou pleof be e rs at th e c on c e rt , St e wa rt ’s state me nt t

hat sh e “ c ou ldn ’t

do [thefi e ld sobriety tests] sober,”the offic er’ s videotape r ecording the se eve nts, and the fa ct that the bre ath tests wer e conduc ted an hour and twenty

minutes after

Stewart’s traff ic stop. Id. ( “Thebreath test results wereproperly admitted evidenc e to consider with all of the other evidenc e of intoxi cation to deter mine if Stewart wa s intox icated at the time she drove.” ). encour aged t he j ur yt o “conduc t i t s ow n r et r ogr ade ext r apol at i on and t o deci de t he ca s e bas ed on fac t s not i n evi dence
. ” I t hel d t hatt he r es ul t s w er e i r r el evantt o s how s he w as i nt oxi cat ed 13

a t th e tim e s h e d ro v e . W e re v e rs e d a n d e x p la in e d , 14
E v id e n c e n e e d n o t b yitse lf p ro v e o r d isp ro v e a p a rticu lar f a c t to b e re lev a n t; i t i s s uffi ci enti f the evi dence pr ovi des a s m al l nudge t ow ar d pr ovi ng or d is p ro v in g s o m e f

a c t o f c o n s e q u e n c e . T he i s s ue her e i s w het herSt ew ar t w as i nt oxi cat ed att he t i m e s he dr ove. St ew ar t ’ s br eath t es t r es ul t s t ended t o m ak e it m or e pr obabl e t hats he w as i ntoxi cat ed at the ti m e she drov e un der ei t her defini t i on of i ntoxi cat i on becau se t h e y p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e t h a t s h e h a d c o n s u me d a l c o h o l
. And , t h e r e i s no evi dence t hats he cons um ed al cohol aft erdr i vi ng. 15
A lth o u g h w e s ta te d that the test resu ltw as n o t “co n clus ive” ev iden ce o f th e d ef en d an t’ s i nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e s he w as dr i vi ng, i t w as pr obat i ve and, coupl ed w i t h t he ot herevi dence , coul d s uffi ce t o pr ove pers e i nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e s he w as dr i vi ng. 16Kirsch Pag e 10

153 S.W .3d at 437. 17 Id. (c i t i n g Ma ta v . S

tate , 46 S.W .3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). 18 Ma ta , 46 S.W .3d at 915. In Ma ta we e xplained that experts ca n, with sufficient 19 information conc erningan individual’s weight, ag e, mental state , drinkingpattern, ty pe and amount of alc ohol consumed, amount of f ood in the stomach, and thetime period of a lcohol consumption, reliably

estimate that per son’s BA C at the time of driving
. Id. at 91 6. B ut w e a lso noted that experts say

that the proc ess of a lcohol absorption is ‘highly varia ble,’ a nd ‘the limit ations and pitfalls associated with retrogradeextrapolation are of ten not appre ciated by lay men and the c ourts.’” Id. at 910 (quotingRichard Watkins & Eug ene A dler, The Effect of Fo od on Alc oh ol A bs or

pti on an d Elim ina tio n Patte rn s, 38 J. O F F O REN SI C S CI EN CE 285, 288 (1993)) . Just as I .Q. test results ar e not an e x act mea surement of a per son’s intellige nce le vel, so, too , th e “ sta

nd ard ” or “ ave ra g e ” e xtra

po latio n o f B AC -t e st r e su lts ba c k to thetim e of drivi ngis not exact unless numerous variables ar e ac counted f or. L ike I Q tests, which may be probative of mental re tardation, so may BA C-test results be probative of an ultimate fa ct such a s intox ication at th e tim e of

drivi ng , whil e no t a

pr e c iseme a sureof

that f a c t. Mec hler , 153 S.W .3d at 438. 20 Si m i l ar l y , i n St at e v. Mechl er , t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s i n t o x i l y z e r - t e s t r e s u l t i n d i c a t e d a BA C of 0. 1 6 5 a p p r o x i ma t e l y9 0 mi n u t e s a f t e r h e h a d d r i v e n . M e c h l e r mov e d t o s u p p r e s s t he 17

r es ul t beca us e t he St at e w as unabl e t o offe r r et r ogr ade ext r apol at i on t es t i m ony , and t he t r i al

cour t gr ant ed hi s m ot i on bas ed on Mat a v. St at e. I n M a ta , w e hel d t hatexper t ext r apol at i on 18
t es t i m onyi s admi s s i bl e onl yi f ce r t ai n fac t or s ar e know n, s uch as “t he l engt h of t he dr i nki ng
s pr ee, t he t i m e of t he l as t dr i nk, and t he per s on’ s w ei ght
. ” H o w ev er, i n Mechl er , we 19

a f f irm e d th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls’s h o ld in g th a t M at a ad d resse d o n lythe a d m issi b il ityo f e x p ert test im o n y , n o t t h e a d m issi b il ity o f th e test resu lt s. W e c o n clud ed that the B A C resu lt s w ere 20 admi s s i bl e i n Mechl er even w i t hout ext r apol at i on t es t i m ony beca us e ( 1) “t heyt end t o m ake i t m or e pr obabl e t hat[t he def endant ] w as i nt oxi cat ed at t he t i m e of dr i vi ng underbot h t he per

s e and i m pai r m ent defi ni t i ons of i nt oxi cat i on” and ( 2) t hei r pr obat i ve val ue out w ei ghed t heKirsch Pag e 11

Id . at 44 0; se eals o id . at 449 (Cochran, J., concurring ) (notingthat the re lative 21 probative va lue of the te st depends primarily upon “(1) the degreeto which the test re sult ex cee ds the leg al limit of 0.08% and (2) theamount of time elapse d betwee n drivingand the takingof the test. The higher the test result and the shor ter the time be tween driving a nd testing, themore likely the log ical infe renc e is that the def endant ha d a B AC level at or a bove 0.08% at the time of driving .”). 210 S.W .3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 22 Id. at 642. 23 r i s k of unfa i r pr ej udi ce unde r R ul e 403. 21
M or e r ece nt l y , i n G ig lio b ia n c o v . S ta te , we r e i t e r a t e d t h a t t h e 0
. 0 9 a n d 0
. 0 9 2 BA C 22

re su lts o f tw o b re a th tes ts ta k e n 7 5 m in u tes a f ter d riv in g h a d c o n sid e ra b le p ro b a tiv e v a lu e in pr ovi ng bot h pers e and i m pai r m enti nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e of dr i vi ng. 23
T he purpor t of t hes e dec i s i ons , t aken t o g ether , i s t hatB A C
- t es t r es ul t s , even a bs ent exper t r et r ogr ade e xt r apol at i on t es t i m ony , ar e oft en hi ghl ypr obat i ve t o pr ove bot h pers e and i m pai r m en t intox icat i on. H ow ever , a B A C
- t es t r es ul t , byi t s el f, i s not s uffi ci entt o pr ove in to x ica tio n a t th e tim e o f d riv in g . T h e re m u st b e o th e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t w o u ld

s uppor t an i nfer ence t hatt he def endantw as i nt oxi cat ed at t he t i m e of dr i vi ng as w el l as att he tim e o f tak in g th e tes t. W e h a v e e x p lain e d th a t, [t ] o be s ur e, i f t he St at e r el i es upon t he [pe r s e] defi ni t i on of i nt oxi cat i on, t hen s uch pr oof w i l l nor m al l yappea r i n t he for m o f a ch emi cal t es t s how i ng t he a l c o h o l c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n a d e f e n d a n t ’ s b o d y nea r the ti m e of the o f f ense . H o w e v e r, a c o n v ictio n w ill n o t n e c e ss a rily f o llo w f ro m th e o f

f e r o f su c h a tes t. Fi r s t , t he t r i erof fa ctm us t s t i l l be convi nced bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat t he che m i cal t es t pr ovi des t r us t w or t hy evi dence of al cohol conce nt r at i on i n a defe ndant ’ s br eath, bl ood or ur i ne. Second, t he j ur ym us t s t i l l be convi nced bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt t hat an i nfer ence can be m ade f r om t he r es ul t s of th e c h e m ica l tes t th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d a 0 .1 0 % a lco h o l co n c e n tra tio n in h isKirsch Pag e 12

Ba gh e ri v . S tate , 1 1 9 S
. W
. 3 d

7 5 5 , 7 6 1 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Fo rtev . S tate , 24 707 S.W .2d 89, 94-95 (Te x . Crim. App. 1986) (empha sis in original))
. Se eStewart , 129 S.W .3d at 96-97 (“ The bre ath test results–alongwith Office r 25 Rodrigue z’s testim ony

and the videota

pe of Stewa

rt–wer e probative evidenc e of he r intox ication. The bre ath test results might not havebeen c onclusive proof that Stewart wa s intox icated at the tim e that sh e dr ov e , b ut t

hat is of no c on se qu e nc e .” ); Mec hler , 153 S.W .3d at 441 (“ intox ilyzer results areevidenc e of intoxi cation under both intox ication def

initions and the proof under eac h definition is not mutually exclusive. . . clearly , a test showingthat blood had a .10 a lcohol c on c e ntratio n is pr ob ativ e e vid e nc e of a los s o f f a c ult ie s. Conve rs e ly , e vid e nc e of his failureto pass field sobrie ty

tests immediately

afte r drivinghis vehicle tends to makeit more probablethat the fa iled blood test or breath test taken an hour later a ccurately

ref lect the driver’s c ondition at th e t i m e o f th e o ff

en s e. ”) (c i t i n g Mec hler , 123 S.W .3d at 456). b o d y at the ti m e of the o f f ense . 24 O t herevi dence t hat w oul d l ogi cal l y r ai s e an i nfer ence t hat t he def endantw as i nt oxi cat ed at th e tim e o f

d ri v in g a s w e ll a s a t th e tim e o f th e B A C te s t in c lu d e s , in ter a lia , er r at i c dr i vi ng, p o st-d riv in g b e h a v io r su c h a s stu m b lin g , sw a y in g , slu rrin g o r m u m b lin g w o rd s, in a b ili tyto per for m fi el d s obr i et yt es t s or fol l ow di r ect i ons , bl oods hot ey es , anyadmi s s i ons byt he d e f e n d a n t c o n c e rn in g w h a t, w h e n , a n d h o w m u c h h e h a d b e e n d rin k in g
– in sh o rt, an ya n d a ll of t he us ual i ndi ci a of i nt oxi cat i on. 25 I n s um , t he evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o s uppor t a jurychar ge on t he “pe r s e” theor yof i nt oxi cat i on i f i t i ncl udes ei t her( 1) exper t t es t i m onyof r et r ogr ade e xt r apol at i on, or ( 2) ot her evi dence of i nt oxi cat i on t hat w oul d s uppor t an i nfer ence t hatt he def endantw as i nt oxi cat ed

a t th e tim e o f

d riv in g a s w e ll as a t th e tim e o f tak in g th e tes t. 2. In this case, t he evi den ce w as suf f i ci ent t o sup

po rt a jury charge o n the “p er se” t heo ry of i nt oxi cat i on . A ppl y i ng t he l aw t o t hi s cas e, w e fi nd t hatappel l ant ’ s B A C
- t es t r es ul t–w hi ch in d ica ted a 0 .1 0 B A C a p p ro x im a tely 8 0 m in u tes a f ter h e d ro v e
– w a s p ro b a tiv e a n d a d m iss ib leKirsch Pag e 13

Se eSie rra v . S

tate , 280 S.W .3d 250, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“L ooking a t the 26 e vid e nc e in t

helight m os t f

avo ra bleto t hepr os e c uti on , a

ra tio na l f a c t- fi nd e r w a s p e rm itt e d to concludethat Sierra w as drivingrec klessly or dang erously

while intox icated. T herewas no evidenc e that Sierra

attempted to brake bef

ore theimpact, eve n though hetold Office r Ertons that he wa s 247 fee t away

from the c ar when he f

irst spotted it. Based on Sierra’s a ccount, the evidenc e showe d that a norma l, undistracted pe rson, who wa s driving a t the thirty -five mile- perho ur sp e e d li mit , w ou ld h avesto pp e d s e ve nty-o nefe e t be fo rethec ar. Th e re fo re , Si e rr a c ou ld have a voided the collision, but he failed to do so, e ven though he had a mple opportunity

to stop befor e hitting the c ar.” ) t o pr ove hi s B A C l evel w hi l e he dr ove, even a bs entext r apol at i on t es t i m ony . A ppel l ant at t empt s t o di s t i ngui s h t hi s cas e fr om our pr i or cas es by ar gui ng t hat , i n t hos e ca s es , t her e w as ot h e r e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a n i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e p e r s e d e f i n i t i o n , s u c h a s e r r a t i c dr i vi ng, phy s i cal s y m pt om s of i nt oxi cat i on, admi s s i on of al cohol cons um pt i on byt he def endant , and fai l ed fi el d s o b ri etyt es t s . H e cont ends t hati n t hi s cas e, t her e w as no s uch addi t i onal

su p p o rt in g e v iden ce . T h e re co rd d o es n o t sup p o rtap p ell an t’ s co n tention
. T h e jury h ea rd evi dence of

* a p p e llan t’s d riv in g a lm o st 2 0 m .p .h . o v e r th e sp e e d lim it p rio r to th e a c c id e n t;

* hi s fai l ur e t o s ee and avoi d hi t t i ng an 18- w heel t r act or - t r ai l ert hatw as t ur ni ng a su b sta n tial d ista n c e a h e a d o f h im ;
* h is f

a ilu re to b ra k e u n til les s th a n o n e se c o n d b e f o re im p a c t; 26

* hi s uncons ci ous nes s i m m edi at el yaft ert he ac ci dent , w h ich pr ecl uded any i nfer ence t hathe dr ank al cohol and bec ame i nt oxi cat ed af t erhe w as dr i vi ng;
* th e o d o r o f

a lco h o l in h is b lo o d sh o rtlya f ter th e a c c id e n t;

* th e p re se n c e o f

v o d k a b o ttl e c a p s (b u t n o b o ttl e s) in th e p a tro l ca r;
* hi s bel l i ger ence at t he hospi t al and ot herbehavi or cons i s t entw i t h i nt oxi cat i on;Kirsch Pag e 14

Appellant’s B rief a

t 3. 27 T EX . R. E V ID . 105(a)
. 28 * h i s “ o b v i o u s l yi n t o x i c a t e d ” a p p e a r a n c e a t t h e e me r g e n c yr o o m, a c c o r d i n g t o ER p e rso n n e l. Ap p e l l a n t ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y wo u l d h a v e h a d t o r e l yo n l yo n t h e u n e x t r a p o l a t e d BACtes t re su lt i n su p p o rt o f

a p e r se in to x ica tio n c o n v ictio n is in a c c u ra te. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th is evidence, t og et her w i t h the B A C -te st r esul t , supp ort ed sub m i ssi on of a c harge o n p er s e in to x ic a tio n a n d c o n v ic tio n o n th a t th e o ry. A p p e llan t als o a rg u e s th a t, be c a u se th e trial j u d g e a d m itt e d th e B A C -te st re su lt w ith a l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on, t he j ur yw as pr ecl uded fr om consi der i ng t he B A C
- t es t r es ul t as pr obat i ve evi dence of per s e i nt oxi cat i on. H e cont ends t hat “[t ] he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on and t he j ur ychar g e w er e cont r adi ct or yi ns t r uct i ons t hatw er e err oneous , w hen gi ven t oget her , and confus i ng. ” A ppel l anti s cor r ectt hatt he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on w as confus i ng, but i t di d not

27 pr eventt he j ur yfr om cons i der i ng w het herappel l antw as “pers e” i nt oxi cat ed att he t i m e he

w as dr i vi ng. B. The l i m i t i ng i ns t r uc t i on. R u le 1 0 5 o f

th e T e x a s R u les o f

E v id e n c e p ro v id e s th a t “[ w ]h e n e v id e n c e w h ich is admi s sible as to o n e par t yor forone purpos e butnot admi s s i bl e as t o anot herpar t yor for anot herpurpos e i s admi t t ed, t he cour t , upon r eques t , s hal l r es t r i ctt he evi dence t o i t s pr oper
s cope a nd i ns t r uctt he j ur y acc or di ngl y . ” T hus , w hen a s t atut e, r ul e of e vi dence , or j udi ci al 28 pr ece dents t i pul at es t hatcer t ai n evi dence m aybe admi s s i bl e fora s peci fi c, l i m i t ed purpos e,Kirsch Pag e 15

See, e .g. , T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 38.14 (T estimony of Ac complice)
. 29 Brown v . S

tate , 1 22 S.W. 3d

79 4, 79 9 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 20 03 ). We e xpla ine d: 30 both appellate a

nd trial courts may

measurethe suffic iency

of evide nce by

resor t to a judicial pre sumption, butthe jury cannot betold of that presumption or rule. For example, the presumption of an intent to commit theft arises from the nonconsensua l nighttime entry of a homeor building. B ut an instruction to the jury on this lega l “pre sumption” is an improper comment on the w eight of the evidenc e. Id. at 800 (footnote omitted). t he j ur ys houl d be i ns t r uct ed as t o t hat purpos e and t ol d not t o cons i dert hatevi dence forany ot her , i m pr oper , purpos e. T her e i s , how ever , no T exas s t atut e, rul e of evi dence , or j udi ci al pr ece dentt hatl i m i t s t he j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on of an ot her w i s e admi s s i bl e B A C
- t es t r es ul t
. O ur deci s i ons i n Ma ta , Stew art , Mechl er , and G igl i obi anco sta te th e o p p o site . A B A C -te st re su lt t h a t i s t a k e n wi t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d o f t i me a f t e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s b e e n d r i v i n g a n d s h o ws th a t h e w a s a b o v e th e le g a l lim it o f in to x ica tio n a t th e tim e o f tak in g th e tes t is probati ve– al t ho ug h n ot concl usi ve– of p er s e i ntoxi cat i on at t he ti m e of d ri ving. T he B A C t est
s how i ng i nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e of the test m us t be s uppor t ed bys om e ot herevi dence t hat i ndi cat es i nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e of dr i vi ng as w el l
. B ut t hatj udi ci al l yi m pos ed r equi r ement deal s w i t h t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence , not t he adm i s s i bi l i t y or us e of evi dence
. A bs ent
a stat u te t hatr equi r es t he j ur yt o be i ns t r uct ed aboutt he s uffi ci encyof ce r t ai n evi dence , 29 j urors are no t i nst ruct ed on such i ssues or l i m i t ed in t heircon si derat i on of ev i den ce otherw i se ful l yadmi s s i bl e. “‘ T exas cour t s ar e forbi dden fr om i ns t r uct i ng t he j ur yon anypr es um pt i on
o r e v id e n tiary-su f

f icie n c yru le th a t d o e s n o t h a v e a sta tu to ryb a sis .’” S u c h a n in stru c tio n is 30Kirsch Pag e 16

Id . at 800. 31 Appellant’s B rief a

t 7. 32 From the colloquies quoted in the text and footnote 7, that may have be en what the trial 33 judgeintended to say , but that is not what he did say . And we must pre sume that the jury followed the instruc tion that was ac tually g iven. Colbu rn v . S

tate , 9 6 6 S. W. 2 d

5 1 1 , 5 2 0 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1998) (“We g ener ally presume thejury

follows the trial cour

t's instruc tions in the manner prese nted.”)
. an i m pr opercomm enton t he w ei ght of t he evi dence
. 31 I n t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l j u d g e i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r yt h a t i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r a p p e l l a n t ’ s BACt es t r es ul t “fort he l i m i t ed purpos e of s how i ng t hat t he i ndi vi dual t es t ed had i nges t ed al cohol onl yats om e poi nt befor e t he t i m e of t he t es t
. ” O bvi ous l y , t he B A C
- t es t r es ul t w as r el evant t o sho w t hat appell ant had i ng est ed en ou gh al coh ol atsom e po i nt before t he ti m e of the t est t o become i nt oxi cat ed by t he t i m e of t he t es t
. B ut i t w as al s o pr obat i ve t o s how t hathe w as i nt oxi cat ed att he t i m e he w as dr i vi ng, even though i t w as not s uffi ci entb y it s el f t o pr ove i nt oxi cat i on att he t i m e of dr i vi ng. T hus , t he i ns t r uct i on w as m i s l eadi ng as w el l as an i m pr opercomm enton t he w ei ght of t he evi dence
. Bu t t h e j u d g e ’ s l i mi t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n d i d n o t p r e v e n t t h e j u r yf r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e BACtes t re su lt as e v id e n c e o f h is p e r se in to x ica tio n a t th e tim e o f d riv in g ; it t o ld th e ju ryth a t it

co u ld b e co n side red p rob ati v e o f alco h o l ing esti o n o r in tox icati o n “o n lyat so m e p o int be fo re t he t i m e of t he t es t , ” notnece s s ar i l yatt he t i m e of drivi ng. I n hi s ar gum ent , appel l ant cont ends t hatt he j ur ycoul d “onl ycons i der [] t he bl ood t es t t o es t abl i s h al cohol

cons um pt i on. ” T hati s not w hat t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on s ay s . T he w or d “onl y ” modi fi es 32 33Kirsch Pag e 17

We arereminded that modifiers, espec ially those like “only ,” ar e tricky littl e fe llows 34 which ar e too fre quently

left dang ling or

misplaced. See http://www.e how.com/how_2149381_fix-dang ling- misplaced-modifie rs.html (“Watch out for wo rd s li ke‘o nly ,’ ‘a lmo st, ’ ‘ e ve n’ and ‘n e arl y ,’ be c a

us e the se modif

ie rs arefr e qu e ntl y mis pla c e d. Makesurethe y a pp e ar dir e c tly

be fo rewh at th e y

de sc ribe . T akea

loo k at th is sentenc e: ‘Anne tte only

ate two c ookies.’ Themodifier, ‘only ,’ appe ars be fore‘ate ,’ which sug g ests that the writer

expected Anne tte to devour, c rush or de molish two cookies– not just eat them. L og ic tells us that the writer intende d to clarify the number of

cookies Anne tte ate. F ix ing a misplace d modifier is ea sy--just move it befor e what it modi fies: ‘Anne tte ate only two cookies.’” ). See H irsch , 276 S.W .3d at 591. B ut the court of a ppeals, pe rhaps a

war e of a ppellant’s 35 misunderstandingand misplace ment of the modifier , stated, “[t] o the extent that the instruction said the test could only

show appe llant inge sted alcohol, the instruc tion was erroneous.” Id. t he “w hen” phr as e–“a t s om e poi nt befor e t he t i m e of t he t es t ”–not t he “w hat ” p h rase
– “had i nges t ed al cohol
. ” T hat i s , appel l ant ’ s ar gum enti s pr emi s ed upon t he mi s t aken be l i ef t hatt he t r i al j udge’ s l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on t ol d t he j ur y t hat i t coul d cons i der t he B A C evi dence “fort he l i m i t ed purpos e of s how i ng t hatt he i ndi vi dual t es t ed had o n ly i nges t ed al cohol ats om e poi nt befor e t he t i m e o f t he t es t
. ” A ppel l antm ent al l ym i s pl ace d t he modi fi er . T he cour t of 34 appea l s fol l ow ed i n hi s w ake, and i t , t oo, m ayhave a cce pt ed app ell an t’ s m i s r eadi ng of t he i ns t r uct i on. 35 T echn i cal l y , t he trial judg e’s l i m i t i ng i nst ruct i on i s not l egall yi nco rr ect : a B A C t est d o e s n o t tell u s w h e n a p e rso n b e c a m e in to x ica ted o r th a t th e p e rso n w a s n e c e ss a rily in to x ica ted a t th e tim e o f d riv in g . F o r th a t, th e ju ryn e e d s s o m e a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e ; in th is

cas e, t her e w as ampl e addi t i onal evi dence t o pr ove t hatappel l antw as pers e i nt oxi cat ed att he tim e o f th e tes t and

att he t i m e he dr ove. B ut t he i ns t r uct i on w as an im p rop ercomm enton th e w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e , an d it w a s m isle a d in g b e c a u se it w a s s u sc e p tib le toKirsch Pag e 18

The State a dditionally

argues that, duringits direct examination of a nurse who treated 36 a pp e lla nt at th e ho sp ita l, i t of

fe re d a pp e lla nt’ s me dic a l r e c ords –whic h c onta ine d th e B AC -t e st result–into evidencewith no limi ting instruction, ther eby permitting thejury

to consider the BA C-test result for a ll purposes. Howe ver, therec ord does not fully support this posit ion: In a confe renc e outside the jury ’s pre sencebefor e the r ecords wereoffe red, theprosec utor acknow ledg ed that some of themateria l contained ther ein, “like the blood test re sults,” werenot yet admissible. He a gree d not to “publish them to the jury at [that] time or mention the blood results” until the judg e had de cided the a dmissibi lity of the B AC-test result. Thus, whe n the prosec utor later of

fer ed the r ecords into evidence , the judg e admitted them “[s]ubj ect to the previous discussion outside the pre senceof the jury .” TheBe n Taub c hemist later testified to the BA C-test results as they

wer e conta ined in the written report. It was at this time that the trial judgeg ave his limiting instruction. We think, therefor e, that the judg e intended that the admissibili ty

of the written and ora l evidenceof the B AC-test result be c onsidered tog ether and that the limiti nginstruction apply to both. m i s under s t andi ng. In su m , the tri al ju d g e p ro p e rl yinstructed the ju ryo n the p er se intox icati o n theo ry beca us e t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence , i n addi t i on t o t he 0. 10 B A C
- t es t r es ul t obt ai ned 80

m i nut es aft ert he ac ci dent , t o concl ude t hatappel l antw as pers e i nt oxi cat ed at t he t i m e of t he

a c c id e n t. T h e trial j u d g e e rre d in g iv in g a n y lim iti n g in stru c tio n , b u t th a t in stru c tio n sim p ly i nfor m ed t he j ur yt hat , byi t s el f, t he t es t r es ul t di d not pr ove m or e t han t hatappel l anti nges t ed

a lco h o l (a n d b e c a m e in to x ica ted ) “ o n lya t so m e tim e b e f o re th e ti m e o f

th e tes t.” T h is i n s t r u c t i o n wa s i mp r o p e r a n d mi s l e a d i n g , b u t i t d i d n o t p r o h i b i t t h e j u r yf r o m u s i n g t h e BACt estres ult , al on g w i t h the r estof the evidence, to c on cl ud e t hat appell ant w as per s e i nt oxi cat ed att he t i m e he w as dr i vi ng. 36 W e t herefore affi rm t he judgm ent of t he co urtof ap peals
.
D el i ver ed: Febr uar y10, 2010 P ub l i sh