NO. 07-07 -047 1-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER25, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ KU RT T. W ELLS, Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 2 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO. 200 6-49 8,2 30; HON. DR UE FARMER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Kurt T . W ells (appe llant) app e a ls h is convi ction for driv ing w hile into x icated . Via three iss ues, he cont ends thatthe tr ial courterred byallo w ing in unauthenti cat ed hearsay ev ide nce that v iol ated his Si xth A mendmen t righ t to co nfront w it ness es. The S tate
conc edes that the a dmis si on of the ev ide nce v iol ated the a forementi oned c onstit uti onal ri g ht; nonethe les s, itbel iev es the e rror to be ha rm le ss . W e di sag re e and re v erse the jud g ment.2

T he e v iden ce i n q uest ion con sisted o f a w ritten rep ort or resolutio n pu rported ly is sued by

the Amer ic an Optomet ri c Ass oci ati on ack now led g ing the “ sc ien ti fic v ali dity and
re li abi li ty of the H GN tes t as a fiel d s obr iety tes t w hen admini ste re d byproper ly train ed and
cer ti fied pol ic e off ic ers . . . . ” The St ate o ff ered th is resol uti on after the appel lan t pur por

ted to “ q uest ion the v ali dity of” t hat t est

. Fur

ther more , it d id so throug h i ts sol e w it ness , t he
ar re sti ng off ic er . Y et, nothi ng of re cord i ndi cat es that the a rrest ing off ic er w as a member of the Optometr icAssoc iat ion , w as an optometr is t, had anyex per ti se in optometr

y , k new the ori g ins or authenti ci ty of the ex hib it , or k new

of the t est s o r stu die s, if any , und ertak en by the Ass oci ati on i n s uppor t of i ts al leg ed opini on. Des pit e that, the State had t he officer ide nti fy the i tem i n frontof the j ur y , after w hic h t h e prose cut or

personal ly

read al oud i ts cont en t . Th e timin g of this event w as quite intere sting fo r not on ly w as it one of

the last pie ces of ev ide nce tendered by the Stat e before opti ng to re st but itw as als o some of the las t testi mony

heard bythe jur

y before the tr ial co urt reces sed for th e day

. Y et, that w as not t he l astti me the Stat e al lud ed to the re sol uti on. Dur ing its cl osi ng arg ument, the State ag ain menti oned t he ex hib it

. In effort to s w ay the j ur y and g ain a c onv icti on, t he prosec utor su g g est ed th at de fense c ounse l w as “g oin g to g et up here, an d he’ s g oin g to hol ler and y ell and sc re am aboutthi s p iec e of paper , and all thi s does is tel l y ou that HG N

. . . HG N is a sc ien ti fic, re li abl e, v a lid , t o o l fo r ju dg ing sobr iety .” Appel lan t’ s leg it imat e obj ect ion to the re por t w as als o us ed by

the Stat e, du ri ng it s c los ing , as a means of dis credi ti ng defense couns el. Thi s ha p p e n ed w hen t he prosec utor

di re cte d the juro rs ’ atten ti on to the suppo sed inc onsi ste ncy i n defense couns el atte mp t i n g to admitappel lan t’ s medi cal records w hil e s imul taneous ly att empti ng to ex cl ude the A ss oci ati on’ s i nadmis si ble resol uti on.It is o fim p o r t t o u n d e r s ta n d th a t t h e S ta te w a s a tt e m p tin g to p r o v e a p p e lla n t g u ilty o fd r iv in g w h ile 1 i nt oxi cat ed b y showi ng t hat hi s m ent al f acul t i es an d ph y si cal abi l i t i es ha d be en i m pai r ed t hr ough t he i ngest i on o f a l c o h o l

. It w a s n o t a tte m p ti n g to p ro v e i n to x i c a ti o n via b l o o d a l c o h o l le v e l s . T h u s , t h e va l i d i ty o f th e te s ts adm i ni st er ed, t he m anneri n whi ch t hey w er e adm i ni st er ed, and appel l ant ’ s per f or m ance on t hose t est s was c rit i c a l

. 3 As prev iou sl y

menti oned, the State conc edes thatadmi ss ion of the repor t v iol ated appel lan t’ s S ixth A mendment r ig ht t o c onfront his ac cus ers. T h u s, we a re obl ig ated to
ass ess w hether

the er ro r w as har mf ul. An d, s inc e the er ro r in q uest ion i s o ne of
cons ti tuti onal mag nit ude, then w e mustappl y the tes t inc or porated in Rul e 44. 2( a) of the Tex a s Ru le s of Appel lat e Procedu re . That tes t obl ig ates us to re v erse the c onv icti on unl ess w e c oncl ude, bey ond reason abl e doubt , t hat t he er ro r did n o t co n tr ibu te t o the outc ome. T EX . R. A PP . P

. 44.2 (a ); Gi bson v. State, 253 S. W .3d 709, 716- 17( Tex . Ap p.– Am arillo 2007 , pet . ref ’d)

. W e re i tp ossible for us to inte rv iew the jurors to accu rately
ass ess w hether

i t affected t hem, our

j ob w oul d be easy . But , t hat w e c annot do. Ins tead,
w e l ook at t he nat ure of the w ro ng , it s eg re g iou snes s, it s repeti ti on, i ts ti ming , t he q uantum of ev ide nce il lus trati ng g uil t, and l ik e i ndi ci a to g aug e the pos si bil ity and extent, i f any , of it s i mpact. See S cott v

. St ate , 227 S.W .3d 670, 690 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2007) (d esc ri bin g the factors t o c onsi der ). W it h tha t s aid , w e now tur n to the re cord before us and immedi atel y note thatthe HG N tes t and i ts v ali dity w as a focal poi nt of t he tr ial

. The prosec utor sta ted as much t o the trial court in respon se to ap pellan t’s object ion. A n d , wh ile thattest w as no t the only one admi nis tered by the ar re sti ng off ic er , it w as one of t he ones used by hi m in as ses si ng app ellant ’s loss of

men tal or physical ability due to the ingestion of alcoho l, thatis, intoxication. And, a su bsta ntive amo untof time w as spen t at tri al in discussing tha t test 1 and i ts admini strati on on appel lan t.4

Next, the t imi ng of the S tate’ s e ffort c annot be i g nored. Ag ain , it w ait ed unt il i t w as about to fini sh it s e v ide ntiary present ati on to tend er the document

. Addi ti onal ly , t hat ins tant happened to coi nci de w it h the end of t he day ’s proceed ing s. So, it can be sai d tha t the A ss oci ati on’ s a ll eg ed re so lu ti o n aboutthe v ali dity of the H GN tes t w as re cei v ed ata most oppor

tune ti me for

the Stat e, t hat b ein g at a ti me w hen i t had the g re ates t pot enti al to r ing uni nter ru pted in the j urors’ ears. That the Sta te redi rected the jur y ’s att enti on to the re sol uti on dur ing i ts cl osi ng arg ument mer it s c omment as w ell . T h is ser v ed notonl y

to re mind the j urors o f the ina dmis si ble ev ide nce but als o to re new its pr ior impact. And, by

pepper ing i ts arg ument
w ith such emo tiv e w ords as “scream ,” and “ho ller,” and “y ell” in describin g its opp one nt’s referen ce to th e repo rt, t he Sta te foun d an ef fective w ay to cat ch the jurors’ attent ion w hile als o bel ittl ing defense couns el for v oic ing a l eg it imat e c oncer n. Next, w e ac know led g e tha t t here ex is ts a q uantum o f ev ide nce, apar t from that relating to the HGN repo rt, tha t illustrates appe llant’s guilt. Moreover, it is quite possib le that the j ur

y w oul d hav e c onv icte d appel lan t had the ev ide nce now at is sue not b een admit t e d

. Y e t , t h a t i s n o t t o s a y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t w a s u n c o n t ra d i c t e d; i t w as co n tr a d ict e d

. Fo r in st a n ce , a p p e lla n t d id no t e xhib itslu rre d sp e e ch . No r di d he en gage in er ra ti c dr iv ing

. So too w as he abl e to re spond to v ar iou s d irect iv es from the off ic er and manipu lat e s mall obj ect s l ik e his key s. And, that the jurors w ere deadl ock ed on the i ss ue of gu il t unt il the tr ial co urt submitted its “Al len C harg e” i s fur ther i ndi ci a s ug g est ing thatthe
ev ide nce of appell ant’ s c ulp abi li ty w as les s t han ov er

w hel ming

. To th i s w e ad d th atw hi l e i t i s l au da bl e for t he S ta te t o c on c ed e er ror , i t s ee ms somew hat inc ong ru ous to inv it e lik e conductin the f uture bysimpl y holdi ng thati ts act ion sO ur deci si on i s not aff ect ed b y t he St at e’ s ar gum ent t hat t he t r i al cour t was f r ee t o j udi ci al l y not e t he 2 v al i di t y of

t he HG N t est

. Even i fi t was so f r ee t o act , t hat doe s not m ean i t was en t i t l ed t o com m ent on t he w e i g h t o f th e e v i d e n c e b y i n fo rm i n g th e ju ry o f w h a t i t c o u l d d o . S e e B ro w n v . S ta te , 122 S. W

. 3d 7 94, 797
- 98 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 3)

. N or does t hat som ehow pl acat e t he l ost opp or t uni t y t o t est t he co ncl usi on v i a cr ossexam i nat i on. 5 w ere ha rmless. Ind eed , experience te ache s tha t in the hea t of batt le litig ant s of

ten push the e nv elo pe of propr iety unti l they are tol d to sto p. As the o ld cl ic he g oes, “ g iv e ‘ em an inc h and they ’l l tak e a mi le. ” So, care shou ld be ta ken to di ss uade l it ig ants from attempti ng to t ak e th e mi l e w he n g i v en the inch inhe ren t i n th e ha r ml es s e r ror r ul e. Th i s s ee ms espe cially

so in those situati o n s we re there e x ists a quantu m of adm issible evi den ce ind ic ati v e of g uil t. The presenc e of leg it imat e ev ide nce of g uil t shoul d notbe s een by the Stat e as a w ay

to sl ip int o the record ev ide nce of dubiou s l eg it imacy . In s um, w e c annot know w it h abs olu te c ertai nty w hat e ff ect , i f any , th e ad mis si on of the repo rt had upo n the jurors’ me nta l proce sses here

. Much i s lef t to rea sona ble deduc ti ons and probabi li ti es ar is ing from the par ti cul ar ci rc umstan ces capt ured of rec ord. And, if thos e c ircums tanc es prev ent u s from con cl udi ng , bey ond reason abl e doubt , t hat the er ro r had no impact on the outc ome, then the ri g ht course of acti on is to re v erse the jud g ment and gr a n t the State oppor tuni ty to re tr y the acc used v ia a proceed ing free of taint

. So, beca use the ci rcumst ance s at bar do n ot allow us to hold, b eyond reaso nab le doubt, thatthe re por

t had no a ff ecton t he dec is ion to conv ict a p p e llant , w e rev erse the judgme nt an d rem and the cau se for f urthe r proceed ings. 2

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.6