1 The inform ation contained two paragraphs, each allegingone of the two statutory definitions

of “ intoxica

ted. ” The first paragraph allege d loss o f normal mental a nd physi cal facu

lties due to alcohol consumption. SeeTex. Pen. Code A nn. § 49. 01(2)(A

) (West Su

pp. 2001) . The second, challenged paragr ap h allege d alcohol concen tration above t

he legal limit. See Act of May 29, 1993, 73d Leg. , R. S. , ch. 900, sec. 1. 01, § 49. 01(2)(B), 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3696 (Tex. Pen. Code A

nn. § 49. 01(2)(B

), sinc e ame

nded ). 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00732-CR

James Cunningham , Appellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 2 OF

WILLIAM SON COUN TY NO. 98-0197-2, HO NORABLE ROB ERT F. B. (SKIP) MORSE, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury fou nd ap pellant James C unn i ngh am gui l ty of dri vi ng w hi l e i ntoxi cated. See Tex . Pen . Code A

nn . § 49.04

(We st Supp . 2001) . The courtas se ss ed

pun i sh men t at i nc arc era ti on f or180 days a nd a $ 200 0 fine, bu t sus pend ed i mpo si ti on of sente nc e a nd pl ac ed appe l l an t on co mmun it y su pe r visio n. We will a ffir m.

Appe llantbri

ngs f orwar d two related poi

nts of error. Fi rst, he conten ds the court erred by ove rrul i ng hi s m oti on to qua sh tha t porti on of the i nf orm ati on al l eg i n g th at h e d rove wi th an al cohol concen

trat ion of 0.10 or more. 1 Second, he contends the court erred by o ve rrulin g h is obje ction to t he i

ncl usi on of thi s theory of the of fen se i n the j ury ch

arge.2 To understand appel

la nt’s contenti ons, it m

ust be not ed t hat t his was appellant’s sec ond t r ial o n t his i

nf orm ati on. A t the f i rs t tri al , b oth th

eori esof t he o ffense we re submitt ed t o t he ju ry, which retur ned a genera l verdict of guilty. On appellant’s ap pe al, t his C o ur t he ld that appellant’s in to xi ly zer test re su l ts sho uld no t have be en ad mitt ed in evide nce a bsent inter pr et ive te st imony by a qualif ie d ex pert. Cunningham v. State , No . 03-9 9-00153 -CR, sl i p op. at 7 (Tex . App.—A

usti n A pr. 27, 200 0, n

o pe t.) (n ot de si gnate d f orpublicat ion) (citi

ng Harre ll v. State , 725 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (T ex. Crim

. App. 1986)). We further held t hat wit hou t expe rt t est imony explaining t o t he jurors what t he num bers “0. 117 ” and “0. 118 ” signified, t her e wa s no evi dentia ry s upport for the alle gation that appellant’s al

coh ol conce nt ra t ion exc eed ed t he lega l li mit and t he co ur t ’s cha rg e sho uld no t have authorized

appe l l an t’s con vi cti on on tha t ba sis ov er a ppe l l an t’s ob jec t io n. Id ., slip op . a t 11. We r ev er se d a nd r ema nd ed fo ra n ew t r ial.

Bef ore the second trial

began , appell

ant move d

t o q uas h t he se co nd

par agr aph o f the i nf orm ati on al l egi ng e xc ess i ve alcohol conc en tration . The

m otion wasoverru

l ed. At t rial, t he Sta

te off ered evi dence to suppo rt bot h t he impaired facult ies and alco hol co ncent ra t ion t heo ries o f the off ense, including t he exp er t t est imony in terpret in g the in to xi ly zer resul ts that it failed t o o ffer at t he fi rst t ria l. Aft er

th e evi de nc e w ascl

ose d, a ppe l l an t obj ec ted to the cou rt su bm i tti ng the al coh ol con centr ati on th eory of i ntox i ca ti on to th e j ury. Th

i s ob j ec ti on was al so overruled. As

at the fi rst t r ial, the j ury

wa s a uthori ze d to c onv

i ct a ppe l l an t of dr iving while into xicat ed if it fo und t hat he dr ove either wh ile me nt ally a nd ph ysic ally imp air ed du e t o alc oho l cons umpt ion or wh i l e h i s a l coh ol conc en tration ex cee ded the legal

l i m i t. Onc e aga

i n, the j ury

returned a g eneral

verdict of g

uil ty.3 In hi s two poi

n ts o f er ror, appe l l an

t urge s th at th e S tate wa s g i v en a f ai r op por tun i ty at hi s f irst trial to prove that h e dr ove wit h an alco hol co ncent ra t ion o f 0.1 0 o r mo re , a nd t hat t he Sta te sho uld no t have be en given a se co nd o pp o rt unit y t o sa t isfy its bu rd en o f pro of. This ar gument re sts on t he ho lding in Burks v. United States , 437 U .S. 1 (197 8). In that opi ni on, the Supreme Court he ld that t he Doub leJ eo par dy Claus e o f the Unit ed S t at es Co nst itu t ion bar s re t rial o f a defe ndant whose convi

ction was rev

ersed on appeal

for l ack of l eg al l y suf f i ci en t ev i den ce to s uppor t th e v erdi ct. Id . a t 18. The hold ing in Burks is appl i cab l e to state cri

m i na l procee di ngs . Greene

v. Massey , 437 U.S. 19, 2 4 (197 8).

In Burks , the Supreme Court disti ngui shed a

rev ers al due to af ai l ure of proof f rom a rev ersa l due to tri al

error. [R]eversal

for trial error, as di stin

guis hed f rom evi dentia ry i nsuf fi ci en cy , d oesnot con sti tute a deci si on to the eff

ect that t he governm

ent has f ai le d to pr ove its c ase . As suc h, i t i m pl i esnoth i ng wi th respe ct to th e g

ui l t or i n n oce n ce of th e def en da n t. Rather, i t i s a de te r minat io n that a defe ndan t has been convi cted thro ugh a j udic ia

l pro cess which i s defectiv e in some fun

damental resp ect, e .g., i

nc orre ct re ce i

pt or rej ec ti on of ev i de nc e, i nc orre ct i ns tructi on, orprosecuto rial

misc o nd uc t . Whe n t his occur s, t he ac cu se d h as a s t r o ng int er es t in o bt ain ing a fa ir r ea dju dic at io n o f his g uilt free f rom error, just as society

ma in tains a val id c oncern f

or insuri ng that th e g ui l ty are puni shed. 437 U. S. at 15. In o ur op inion o n app ellant’ s first app eal, we d id no t hold t hat t he State f ai l ed to pr ove that he dr ove whil

e in to xicated. Indeed, appellan t did not c hal

len ge the su ff

ic ie ncy of t he evi dence. A ppe l l an t’s origi na l con vi cti on was not reversed due to a fai lure of proo f, b ut be ca us e of t he in correct recei

pt o f ev ide ncean d in co rr ec t jur y inst ruc t io ns. T he se we r e t r ial e rr o r s t ha t did not i nv oke the Doub l e Je opardy

Claus e on re

tria l .4 The poin ts of error are o verrul ed and the j udgme nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Mack Ki dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: Septembe

r 13, 2001 Do No t Publis

h