## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 111- CR E L I UD S AL AZ AR AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 158TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON A p p e lla n tE liu d S a la z a ra p p e a lsh isc o n v ic t i o n f o rd r iv in g w h ile i nt oxi ca t ed. I n t hr ee poi nt s, Sal az ar ar gue s t hat t he t r i alco urter r ed by a l l ow i ng t es t i m ony r ega r di ng e vi den cehe cl ai m s w asdest r oye d by t he pol i ce ; t hatt he tri a l c o u rt e rre d b ya l l o w i n g th e a rre s ti n g o ffice r to te s ti fyto S a l a z a r’s per f or m ance on t he hor i zont al gaze nyst agm us ( H G N ) tes t; and t hatt he t r i al c o u rt e rre d b ya d m o n i s h i n g d e fe n s e c o u n s e l . W e w i l l a ffir m .2 II. B AC KG ROUND A tap pr oxi m at el y 7: 00 p. m . , Ja nuar y 6, 2007 , Char l ott e Br adf or d— ac com pan i ed by herda ught er — w asdr i vi ng a l ong F . M . 407 i n Dent on Count y, T e x a s. B rad fo rd s a i d tha t sh e w i tn e ss e d S a l a za r d ri v i n g tow a rd h e r “a t a t e r r ib [ly ] h ig h ra t e o f s p e e d .” B r a d f o r d t e s t if ie d t h a tS a la z a rd r o v e h isv e h ic le o u to fh is l a n e a n d f u llyin t o h e rla n e t o a n e x t e n tt h a t“ [h e ] w a sd ir e c t lyin fro n t o f m e .”B ra d fo rd s ta te d t h a tt h i sh a p p e n e d a t a ti m e w h e n th e re w e re r oug hl y onl y t w o carl engths bet w een her sel fand S al azar . Bradf or d sai d t hat she t hou ght, “m y daug ht er and I [ w er e] goi ng t o di e. ” Br adf or d sai d she t hen pul l ed overt o t he r i ght as f ar as she coul d and t hatSal azaral so qui ckl y t ur ned t o hi s ri g ht“[ i ] nches bef or e havi ng a head- on [ col l i si on. ] ” Br adf or d sai d t hat she “had [ com e] t o a st op” and t hat she “satt her e [ m om ent ar i l y] t o t ry t o get m yb e a ri n g sto g e th e r.” A s sh e s at , Br adf or d s ai d s he obs erved S al az ar“goi ng a l l ove rt he r oad ” bef or e h e l eftt he r oad , cr as hed t hr ough a f enc e, an d dr oveer r at i ca l l y t hr ough a p ast ur e. Bradf or d’ s dau ghtersai d she w i t nessed Sal azart r avel “of ft he r oad t o t he r i ght si de . . . and t hen al l o fa sudden I coul d see headl i ghts , and t hey
w e r e ju s t b o u n c in g a ll o v e r t h e g r a s sin t o t h a tf ie ld , a n d t h e n a ll o fa s u d d e n it st oppe d. ” Br adf or d i m m edi at el y dr ovet o a ne ar by p ol i cest at i on w her e s he and3

her daug ht er w ai ved dow n a pol i ce of f i cer and expl ai ned w hat had j u st occ ur r ed. R e b e c c a N i c k e ls o n s a id t h a ts h e f ir s tn o t ic e d S a la z a rd r iv in g e r r a t ic a lly a nd a th i gh s pe e d w he n hep ul l e d ou ti n f r on to fh e ra ss hee xi t e d I nt e r s t a t e 35 o n to F .M . 4 0 7 . S h e s a i d S a l a z a rw a stra v e l i n g v e ryfa s t a n d h i sti re sw e re “s que al i ng”ashepul l ed aw ay f r om t he par ki ng l otshar ed by a gas st at i on a nd a l i q u o r store . N i c k e l so n rec a l l e d tha t S a l a za r’ s ve h i c l e c o n ti n u e d to s e p a rate fro m h e rs , so m u c h s o th a t s h e a l m o s t l o s t s i g h t o f h i m . B yN i c k e l s o n ’s a c c o u n t, A s I t oppe d t he hi l l , I r ea l i zed I s aw t he sa m e t ai l l i ght s att he b o ttom oft he hi l l w hi ch st art s an S cur ve, and i ti s 35 m i l es an hou rar oun d t hat cur ve. A nd I cont i nued j ustgoi ng do w n, and as I hi tt he S c u rve, t her e w as bi l l ow i ng l i ke r ol l s ofdi rtand pebb l es j us tf l yi ng. A s N i ck el so n app r oac hed , sh e f ound Sal az ar ’ s veh i cl e u ps i de dow n. Ni ck el so n pos i t i one d hercarso t hati t s hea dl i ght s w oul d i l l um i nat e Sal az ar ’ s veh i cl e. She saw S a l a za rcr aw l f r om t he dr i ver ’ s seat , outt he back w i ndo w , and l ean a g a i n s t h i s v e h i c l e . N i c k e l s o n g o t o u t o f h e r c a r a n d y e l l e d , “a re y o u o k a y , a re y o u o k a y , c a n y o u h e a rm e , a r e y o u o k a y [? ]” N ic k e ls o n s a id t h a tS a la z a rd id not r espond . A tt hi s t i m e m ul t i pl e vehi cl es ar r i ved, i ncl udi ng t he pol i ce. P o lic e o ffice r S e a n F o l e ys a i d th a t w h e n h e a rri v e d S a l a z a r h a d a v e ry di shevel ed appear ance, hi s eyes w er e bl ood shot , he sm el l ed o fur i ne and had4

a u r i ne st ai n on t he f r ontofhi s j ea ns , hi s sp ee ch w as“ r ea l t hi ckt ongue d” , an d h e h a d a s tro n g s m e l l o f a l c o h o l o n h i s b re a th a n d “ g e n e ra l l yfro m h i sp e rs o n .” Fol ey t es t i f i ed t hat he con duc t ed st and ar di z ed f i el d s obr i et y t es t s, i ncl udi ng t he H G N , t he w al k- and- t ur n, and t he one- l egged st and. D ef ense counsel obj ect ed t o t he t es t i m ony r ega r di ng t he H G N t es t , ar gui ng t hatt he St at e h ad not p ro p e rl ye stabl i sh ed t ha tFo l eyw as q ua l i f i ed t o p erf orm i t . T he t r i al co urt ove r r ul ed t he obj ec t i on. F o le ys a id t h a tS a l a z a ra d m it t e d t h a th e w a sf a m ilia rw it h t h e f ie ld sobr i et y t est s because ofpr i orD W I convi ct i ons. Fol ey t est i f i ed t hatSal azar f ai l ed al l t hr eet es t s. Fo l ey sa i d t hatS al az arw as“def i ni t el y i n t he ca t ego ry of t h e m o r e in t o x ic a t e d p e o p le I h a v e h a d t o d e a l w it h in m yc a r e e r , s u b s t a n t ia lly i m pai r ed. ” A vi deotape f r om Fol ey’ s pat r ol car cam er a of Fol ey’s e n c oun t er w it h S a la z a rw a sp la y e d f o rt h e ju rya tt r ia l. F o l e yarres ted S a l a za r. A fter his arres t, S a l a za r pro v i d e d a b rea th sp ec i m en at8: 48 p. m . T he br ea t h s pec i m en sh ow ed 0. 152 gr am s ofal coh ol per210 l i t er s ofbr ea t h a nd 0. 145 gr am s ofal coh ol pe r210 l i t er s ofbr ea t h. D ur i ng t he t r i al , t he st at e el i ci t ed t est i m ony r egar di ng a beerbot t l e w hi ch
w a sa l l e g e d lyf o u n d o n th e s i d e o f th e ro a d ro u g h l y2 0 0 fe e t fro m w h e re S a la z a r ’s v e h ic le c a m e t o r e s t in t h e p a s t u r e . F o le yd e s c r ib e d t h e b o t t le a sc o ld and pa rt i al l y w r app ed i n a ba g, w i t h s om e c onde ns at i on on t he out si de and a5

s m a ll a m o u n to fliq u id in s id e . F o le ys a id t h a th e t o o ka p ic t u r e o ft h e b o t t le a n d , a lt h o u g h h e d id n o tk n o w w h a th e u lt im a t e ly d id w it h t h e b o t t le , itw a sh is d e p a rtm e n t’sp o l i c yt o “ n o t s e i z e a l c o h o l i c b e v e ra g e c o n ta i n e rsa sa s ta n d a rd pr ac t i ce . ” D ef ens e c ouns elobj ec t ed t o t hi s t es t i m ony and t o t he adm i ss i on of th e p h o to g rap h , c l a i m i n g tha t t h e b o ttl e w a s n o t ne a r S a l a za r’ s v e h i c l e . B o th or al l y a nd byw r i t t en m ot i on , d efe ns e c ouns elal so ar gue d t hatbe ca us e t he S t at e had l eftt he bott l e on t he si de of t he r oad, t hey had ef f ect i vel y dest r oyed t he bott l e w i t houtf i r stal l ow i ng Sal az ar t o i nde pen den t l y t es ti t . Spec i f i ca l l y, def ens e c ouns elar gue d: I t hi nktha tt he st at e b y a t t em pt i ng t o l i nk t hi s bott l e a nd a t t e m p t in g t o t e s t if yt h a titw a so fc o n d e n s a t io n a n d c o ld is at t em pt i ng to i m pl y t o t he j ur y t hatt hi s i s som ehow connected w i th [] S a l a z a r’sb e h a v i o r. I ft hatha d be en donean d t hatevi den cehad been pr es erved , obvi ousl y, itc o ul d have been f i nger pr i nt ed, coul d have been exa m i ned f urt her but w asde st r oye d t hatni ght , orce rt ai nl y l eftout t her e a tt he sc ene , w hi ch i s ef f ec t i vel y unde r Pena an obs t r uct i on ofpot ent i al l y us ef ul ev i den cean d ce rt ai nl y evi den ce t hatw oul d be exc ul pat ory a tt hi s poi ntnow t hatt he st at e h asch os en t o br i ng t hi s m att erup. S o I w o u l d re q u e s t th e c o u rt m a k e th e fi n d i n g sw i th re g a rd t o t he t hr ee- step anal ysi s, such as r equi r ed und erPena, and t hen m ak e t hos e f i ndi ngsasi s r equ i r ed by b ot h Pena 2 and Pena 3. And I bel i eve i tw ar r ant s - -and al so subsequentl y m ove f ora di sm i ssal oft he case based upon t he l oss ordest r uct i on of t hi s evi dence.6

The t r i alco urtove r r ul ed def ens e c ouns el ’ s obj ec t i on a nd deni ed hi s m ot i on f or d is m is s a l. The St at e al so el i ci t ed t es t i m ony f r om Lor i Ful l er , a t ec hni ca l s upe rvi so r f ort he S outhw est er n I n sti tu t e ofFor ensi c Sci ences. The S t at e quest i oned Ful l er r egar di ng t he equi pm ent used t o t ake S al azar ’ s br eat h sam pl es. D ef ense coun sel obj ect ed m ul t i pl e t i m es du r i ng hertes t i m ony. I n al m ostevery i nst ance, t he t r i a l c o u rto v e r r u l e d t h e o bj e c t i o n . Aft e rt h e t r i a l c o u rto v e r r u l e d o n e of t hese obj ect i ons, def ense counsel m oved fora m i st r i al . T he t r i al courtor der ed t he bai l i f ft o escortt he j ur y f r om t he court r oom and addr essed def ense counsel
w i th the foll o w i n g ad m o n i sh m e n t: [T ]h a t i s th e fo u rth ti m e th a t y o u h a v e j u s t s u d d e n l y‘I m o v e fo r a m i str i al . ’ I tha sn ’ tbe en pr ec ede d bya r ul i ng w hi ch w asi n yo ur f avor . I thasn’ tbeen pr eceded byany sortofa pr ecedent t hat w oul d gi ve you the r i ght -
-o rm e the r i ght t o gr anta m i st r i al , t hat I ’m aw a re o f. I b e l i e v e tha t yo u ’r e si m p l yd o i n g i t, o n e , to a g g ra v a te m e a n d y o u h a v e s u c c e e d e d . S e c o n d l y , I t h i n ky o u ’re doi ng i tt o som ehow i nf l uence t he j ur y orm ake t hem bel i eve t hat s o m e th i n g te rri b l e h a sg o n e w ro n g w h e n , i n fa c t, i t h a sn o t. T h e n e x t t i m e y o u m a k e a m o ti o n for a m i stri a l , I ’m g o i n g to h a v e t h e ju rys e n to u t , I ’m g o in g t o a s ky o u t o v e ryc o n c is e ly expl ai n t he l egal basi s f oryourm ot i on f ora m i st r i al , and i tbet t er n o t be b e c a u se , J u d g e , y o u ’r e j u st stu p i d l yw ron g o r so m e th i n g to th a t effec t. A ft erf urt herdi scussi on r egar di ng cou nsel ’ s ob j ect i on and t r i al exhi bi t s, t h e ju ryw a sth e n b ro u g h t b a c ka n d th e tri a l p ro c e e d e d . T h ej u ryu l ti m a te ly7

f oun d S al azargui l t y oft hi r d- degr ee f el ony D W I an d a ssessed puni shm entat s e v e n y e a r s ’ in c a r c e r a t io n . T h e t r ia l c o u rts e n t e n c e d S a la z a ra c c o r d in g ly . T h is app ea l f ol l ow ed. III. D I SCU SSI ON A . Pr eservat i on of Evi dence In h is f ir s tp o in t , S a la z a r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rt e r r e d b y o v e r r u lin g h is obj ec t i on t o t es t i m ony r ega r di ng, an d t he adm i ss i on of , a phot ogr aph de pi ct i ng a b e e r b o ttle o n th e s i d e o f th e ro a d n e a r w h e re S a l a z a r’sv e h ic l e ro l l e d o v e r. Sal az ar ’ s ar gum enti s bui l ton t he pr em i set hatt he of f i ce r s i n t hi s ca seha vi ng l eftt he bee rbot t l e by t he si de oft he r oad w ast ant am ountt o t he des t r uct i on o fp o t e n t ia llye x c u lp a t in g e v id e n c e . S p e c if ic a lly , S a la z a ra r g u e st h a tin a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e W a c o Co u rt o f Ap p e a l s ’ d ec i si on i n Pen av. S tate , t h is courtshoul d f i r sthol d t hat t he Tex as D ue C our se ofLaw pr ovi si on pr ovi des a gr eat e rl e ve l o fp r ot e c t i on t ha n t hef e de r a l DuePr oc e s sCl a us e . 226 S. W . 3d 634 , 6 37– 53 ( Tex. A pp. — W ac o, 2007 ) ( hol di ng t hatt he Texa s D ue C our seof La w pr ovi si on pr ovi desa gr ea t erl eve l ofpr ot ec t i on w i t h r egar d t o l os tor d e stro y e d ev i d e n c etha n d o e s th e D u e P roc e ss C l a u se o f t h e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t), over

ruled on other

groundsNo. PD- 1411- 07, 2009 W L9285 94, a t * 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . A p r.8 , 2 0 0 9 ) (“ Pen aIV”) . Rel yi ng on t hatpr em i se, S a l a za r as k s th i s c o u rtto fu rt h e r ho l d tha t t h e b e e r bo ttl e w a s s u bj e c t t o8

di sc ove ry; t hatt he St at e h ad a d ut y t o pr es erve t he bee rbo t t l e; and t hatt he of f i ce r s i n t hi s ca se ac t ed i n bad f ai t h by l ea vi ng t he bee r bott l e on t he si de of t he r oad . The St at e a r gue s t hatt he Texa s D ue C our seofLa w Cl aus e a f f or ds n o g rea ter p rote c ti o n tha n the fed e ral D u e P roc e ss C l a u se . T h u s, th e S tate ar gue s, t h i sc o u rts h o u l d o v e r r u l e Sa l a z a r ’ sf i r s tp o i n tb e c a u s e t h e r e i sno evi den cet hatt he of f i ce r s i n t hi s ca seac t ed i n ba d f ai t h. I n det er m i ni ng w het hert he pr e- t r i al dest r uct i on of evi dence con st i t ut es a d eni alofduepr oce ssofl aw unde rt he U ni t ed S t ate s C ons t i t ut i on, t he S upr em e C ourtdr aw s a di st i nct i on betw een “m a teri a l excul pat or y evi dence” and “potent i al l y usef ul evi dence. ” See Ar i zonav. Youngbl

ood, 488 U . S. 51, 5 7

– 5 8 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 3 3 3 , 3 3 7 (1 9 8 8 ). Afe d e ra l d u e p ro c e s sv i o l a ti o n o c c u rs w h e n e v e r a s ta te s u p p re s s e s o r fa i l s to d i s c l o s e “ m a te ri a l e x c u l p a to ry e v i d e n c e ,”re g a rd l e s so f w h e th e r th e S ta te a c te d i n b a d fa i th . I l l i noi s v. Fi sher, 5 4 0 U .S . 5 4 4 , 5 4 7 , 1 2 4S . C t . 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 1 (2 0 0 4 ). B u t th e S u p re m e C o u rt hashe l d t hati fa def endan ts ee kst o pr ovea f ede r alduepr oce ssvi ol at i on bas ed on a s t at e’ s des t r uct i on of“ pot ent i al l y us ef ul ev i den ce , ” t he def end ant m u s t s h o w th a t th e S ta te a c te d i n b a d f a i th in d e s tro y i n g th e e v i d e n c e . Fi sher, 5 4 0 U .S . a t 5 4 7

– 4 8 ; Youngblood, 488 U . S. at57–5 8. I n Youngbl ood, t he C ourtdescr i bed “ potent i al l y usef ul evi dence” as evi denti ary m at er i al “ofw hi ch n o m o re c a n b e s a i d th a n th a t i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n s u bj e c ted to te sts , th e res u l ts9

ofw hi ch m i ght have exon er at e d th e def endan t . ” Youngbl ood, 48 8 U . S . at 57–58 . The Tex as C ons t i t ut i on pr ovi dest hat“ [ n] o c i t i z en oft hi s St at e s hal l be depr i ved of l i f e, l i bert y, pr opert y, pri vi l eges ori m m uni t i es, ori n any m anner d i sfran c h i se d , e x c e p t bythe d u e co u rse o f t h e l a w o f t h e l a n d .” T e x . C o n st. art . I , § 19. A num berofTexa s cou rt s ofa pp ea l s, i ncl udi ng t hi s cou rt , ha ve hel d t hatt he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on doesnotpr ovi de a gr ea t erl eve l ofpr ot ec t i on t han t he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on r ega r di ng t he St at e’ s l os s orde st r uct i on of e v i d e n c e i n a c ri m i n a l p ro s e c u ti o n . S e eJa ckso nv. S tate , 50 S . W . 3d 579, 5 8 8

– 8 9 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 1 , p e t. re f’d ); see al so State v. V

asquez , 2 3 0 S .W .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 0

– 5 1 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.); Mc G e ev. S tate , 2 1 0 S .W .3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 5 (T e x . A p p .— E a s tl a n d 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); Sa l aza r v. S tate , 1 8 5 S .W .3 d 9 0 , 9 2 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.); State v. Rudd, 8 7 1 S .W .2 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 3 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s1 9 9 4 , n o p e t.); Sa lda n av. S tate , 783 S . W . 2d 22, 23 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n 1990, no p et . ) . But S al azarasks t hi s courtt o aband on ou row n hol di ng and t he hol di ng of t he ot her Tex as court s ofappeal s i n f avor o f adopt i ng t he W aco C ourtofA ppeal s’ opi ni on ho l di ng t hatt he T exas D ue C our se ofLaw C l ause af f or ds gr eat er p ro te c ti o n th a n th e fe d e ra l D u e P ro c e s sC l a u s e . S e ePen av. S tate , 166 S .W .3 d 2 7 4(T e x . A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 5 ) (“ Pena I ” ), vacated by191 S. W . 3d 133,10

1 4 5

– 4 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (v a c a ti n g a n d re m a n d i n g o p i n i o n b a c kto c o u rt o f a p p e a l s ) (“ Pen aII” ); se e al soPen a , 226 S. W . 3d a t637– 53 ( “ Pen aIII” ). I n Pena I, t he W aco C ourtofA ppeal s hel d t hatt he D ue C our se ofLaw C l a u s e p ro v i d e s a g re a te r l e v e l o f p ro te c ti o n th a n th e D u e P ro c e s sC l a u s e . S ee U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d s . V ; X IV , § 1 ; T e x . C o n s t. a rt. I , § 1 9 ; Pena I, 166 S. W . 3d a t2 7 8

– 8 2 . T h e c o u rto fc r im in a l a p p e a lsh e ld t h a tt h e W a c o C o u rto fA p p e a ls er r e d by r e vi e w i ng un a s s i gn e d e r r or r e ga r di ng t he Due Cou r s e of L a w C l ause w i th o u t fi rs t re q u e s ti n g a d d i ti o n a l b ri e fi n g . S e ePen aII . O n r em and, t he W aco C ourtofA ppe al s i n Pen aIII eng age d i n a l eng t hy a nal ys i s oft he t w o pr ovi si ons and ag ai n he l d t ha tthe D ue C our seofLa w Cl aus e p r ovi desa gr ea t erl eve l of p ro te c ti o n th a n th e D u e P ro c e s sC l a u s e . S e ePen aIII . The cou rtofcr i m i nal ap pe al s r eve r se d, hol di ng t hatt he def end antha d f ai l ed t o pr es erve t he ar gum entconcer ni ng w het herthe D ue C our se of Law C l ause pr ovi des a gr eat er l e v e l o f p ro te c ti o n th a n th e D u e P ro c e s sC l a u s e . S e ePen aIV. T h u s , th e c o u rt ofcr i m i nal appeal s has notaddr essed w het herourst at e’ s C onst i t ut i on pr ovi des gr ea t er pr ot ec t i on t han i t s f ede r alco unt er part . Not abl y, t he Supr em e Courtof T e x a sh a ss t a t e d t h a tt h e la n g u a g e o ft h e s et w o c la u s e sis“ n e a r lyid e n t ic a l” and t hatt her e i s no m ea ni ngf ul di st i nct i on be t w ee n “ dueco ur se ” and “ due pr ocess. ” S ee Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch . atHouston v. Th an , 901 S. W . 2d 926, 9 2 9 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ).11

O t hert han t he W ac o C ourtofA ppe al s’ opi ni onsi n Pena I an d Pen aIII, no ot herTexa s app el l at e court ’ s opi ni on cont r adi ct s t hi s cou rt ’ s pr ec ede ntt hatt he tw o p ro v i s i o n sp ro v i d e t h e e q u i v a l e n t p ro te c ti o n . See Jacks on , 50 S. W . 3d at 5 8 8

– 8 9 ; see al

so State v. V

asquez , 23 0 S. W . 3d 74 4, 751 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on[ 14t h Di st . ] 2007 , no pet . ) ( dec l i ni ng t o f ol l ow Pena I o r Pena III) . Af t erco ns i der i ng t he opi ni onsi n Pena I an d Pen aIII, w e re s p e c tfu l ly dec l i ne t o f ol l ow t hem . W e a gr eew i t h ourpr evi oushol di ng a nd t he hol di ng of ot herTexa s cou rt s ofap pea l s t hatt he D ue C our se of La w C l aus e p r ovi dest he sa m e p r ot ec t i on a s t he D ue P r oce ssCl aus e r ega r di ng t he St at e’ s des t r uct i on ofpot ent i al l y us ef ul ev i den cei n a cr i m i nalpr os ec ut i on. Ther ef or e, t o s how a v i o l a ti o n , S a l a z a r m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t th e S ta te a c te d i n b a d fa i th . S ee Jacks on , 50 S . W . 3d a t588– 89. H er e, assum i ng t hatFol ey l ea v i n g th e beerbot t l e att he scene w as t a n t a m o u n t to th e d e s tru c ti o n o f e v i d e n c e , th e re i sn o e v i d e n c e th a t F o l e y ’s h a v in g le ftt h e b e e rb o t t le w a st h e re s u lto fb a d f a it h . F o le yt e s t if ie d t h a tit
w a s hi s de pa rt m e nt ’ s po l i c y t o “ no t s e i z e a l c oh ol i c be ve r a ge c on t a i ner s as a s ta n d a rd p ra c ti c e .”T h e re i sn o e v id e n c e i n th e re c o rd to c o n tra d i c t F o l e y ’s tes ti m o n y . A c c o rding l y , w e c o n c l u d e an d h o l d tha t S a l a za r ca n n o t de m o n strate b a d fai th , a n d w e o v e rr u l e h i s fi rst po i n t.12

B. H or i zont alG aze N yst agm us Test I n h i s s e c o n d p o i n t, S a l a za r arg u e s th a t th e tri a l co u rterred b yfai l i n g to s u s ta i n h i so bj e c ti o n to F o l e y ’ste s ti m o n yre g a rd i n g th e H G N te s t. S a l a z a r’s a rg u m e n t i sth a t th e S ta te f a i l e d t o e s ta b l i s h t h a t F o l e yw a sq u a l i fi e d t o p e rfo rm th e H G N tes t an d t h a t t h e refo re i t w a s h a rm fu l erro r t o all o w F o l e yto te sti fy concer ni ng S al azar ’ s per f or m ance on t he H G N t est . W e di sagr ee. W het hera part i cul arw i t nes s qua l i f i esa s an ex perti s a d ec i si on t o be m ade by t he t r i al j udg e, and t he t r i al j udg e has br oad di scr e ti on i n t hi s ar ea. S terl i ngv. S tate , 8 0 0 S .W .2 d 5 1 3 , 5 2 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ), cert. denied, 5 0 1 U .S . 1 2 1 3 (1 9 9 1 ); Kerr v. S tate , 9 2 1 S .W .2 d 4 9 8 , 5 0 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W ort h 1 99 6, no pet . ) . A t r i al court ’ s deci si on i n t hi s ar ea w i l l not be di st ur bed a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . Ster l i ng , 80 0 S. W . 2d a t 52 1. F ort es t i m ony c o n c e r n in g a d e f e n d a n t ’s p e r f o r m a n c e o n t h e H G N t e s t t o b e a d m is s ib le , it mu s tb e s h o wn t h a tt h e w i t n e s st e s t i f y i n g i sq u a l i f i e d a sa n e x p e rto n t h e HG N te s t. Kerr, 921 S. W . 2d a t502. I n t hi sca s e , Fol e y t e s t i f i e d t ha the ha d be e n a pol i c e o f f i c e rs i nc e 1992 . F o le ys a id t h a t in 1 9 9 5 h e a t t e n d e d a n e x t e n s iv e f ie ld s o b r ie t yt e s t in g s c h o o l. A s partoft he t r ai ni ng, he condu ct ed f i el d sobr i et y t est s on m ul t i pl e t est subj ect s. H e t est i f i ed thathe i s cert i f i ed t o adm i ni st erf i el d sobr i et y t est s. F o le ys a id t h a tin t h e la s ty e a rh e h a d a t t e n d e d t w o f o u r -h o u rs t a n d a r d f ie ld13

sobr i et y cour ses. Fol ey t est i f i ed t hatw hi l e at t hese cl asses , h e had pr act i ced t h e HG N t e s tr o u g h l yf i f t yt i me s . Hea l s o s a i d t h a th e h a d p e r f o r me d t h e HG N t es tbetw een 200 and 300 t i m esi n t he f i el d. Fo l ey al so f ul l y e xpl ai ned t he t echni que f oradm i ni st er i ng t he H G N tes t . W e co ncl ude and hol d t hatthe t r i al c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n b yo v e rru l i n g S a l a z a r’so bj e c t io n t o F o l e y ’s t e s t im o n y r e g a r d in g S a la z a r ’s p e r f o r m a n c e o n t h e H G N t e s t . W e o v e r r u le S a l a za r’ s s e c o n d p o i n t. C . Tri alJudg e’ s C om m ent s t o D ef ense C oun sel I n hi s t hi r d poi nt , S al azar com pl ai ns t hat t he t r i al j udg e’ s com m ent s t hat d e fe n s e c o u n s e l w a sto p ro v i d e a “ v e ryc o n c is e le g a l b a s i s ” fo r a n yfu tu re m ot i ons f orm i st r i al pl aced S al azar“atan unf ai rdi sadvant age and un der m i ned [de fen se co u n se l ’s] ze a l o u s rep res e n tati o n ,” the reb yd e n y i n g h i m h i s “ ri g h t t o d u e p r o c e s sa n d a f a irt r ia l.” S a la z a ra d m it st h a t“ t h e r e a r e n o c a s e sd ir e c t ly o n p o i n t w i th th e i s s u e a t h a n d .”N o n e th e l e s s , S a l a z a r l i k e n sth e tri a l j u d g e ’s com m ent s i n t hi s ca set o a t r i alj udge ’ s att em pt s t o, w i t hi n i t s di sc r et i on, r eg ul ate t he du r ati on of argu m en t t o t he j ury or m ov e i t s do ck et al on g . S ee D a ngv. S tate , 15 4 S . W . 3d 61 6, 62 1– 22 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 05 ) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on i n l i m i t i ng j uve ni l e d ef end ant ’ s cl os i ng a r gum ent t o t w ent y m i nut es ) . And, S al az arar gue s, t he t r i alcourtabus ed i t s di sc r et i on. S e eid . The St at e c ount er s t hatSal az arha s f ai l ed t o pr es erve t hi s er r or14

bec aus e h e n eve rs pec i f i ca l l y obj ec t ed t hatt he t r i al c ourt ’ s adm oni sh m ent

“ w o u l d i n te rfe re [] i n a n yw a yw i th [d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s ] ze a l o u sre p re s e n ta ti o n .” S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 33 . 1. W e w i l l assum e w i t hou tdeci di ng t hatSal azarhas p re s e rv e d th i se rro r. A t r i al cou rt has br oad di sc r et i on i n m ai nt ai ni ng c ont r ol an d e xpe di t i ng t he tri a l . Ja sp er v. S tate , 61 S. W . 3d 413 , 4 21 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2 001 ) . Butt he tri a l c o u rt s h a l l m a i n ta i n a n a ttitu d e o f i m p a rti a l i tyt h ro u g h o u t th e t ri a l . Hoang v. S tate , 9 9 7 S .W .2 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 0 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t .). W e agr ee w i t h S al azar ’ s char act er i zat i on of t he t r i al j udg e’ s com m ent s i n t hi s case as an att em ptt o exped i t e and m ai nt ai n contr ol overt he t r i al and exer ci se r easonabl e cont r ol overt he m o d e a n d or deroft he pr esent at i on of evi dence. S ee Jasper, 6 1 S .W .3 d a t 4 2 1 . B u tw e d o n o t a g re e th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s a d m o n is h m e n tt o d e f e n s e c o u n s e l— m a d e o u t s id e t h e p r e s e n c e o ft h e ju ry — in anyw ay den i ed S al aza rhi s r i ghtt o duepr oce ssan d a f ai rt r i al ; r at her , t he com m ent s app ea rt o be si m pl y an att em pt t o a voi d t he nee dl es s con su m pt i on o f ti m e . See Hoang , 9 9 7 S .W .2 d a t 6 8 1

– 8 2 (h o l d i n g th a t tri a l c o u rt ’s com m ent s t o def ens e c ouns elt o “ [ q] ui tbe i ng r epe t i t i ous ” and “ [ l ] et ’ s gett o t he p o in t ” w e r e a c c e p t a b l e a t t e m p t st o m o v e t h e t r ia l a lo n g ). W e o v e r r u le S a l a za r’ s th i rd p o i n t.15 I V. C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l th re e o f S a l a z a r’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

BI LLM EI ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , W A LKER, an d M EI ER, JJ. W A LKER, J. co ncu r s w i t houtopi ni on. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: J ul y 23, 2009