1 ... SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07- 010- CR
CA S E Y DE AN T E R R Y AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CRI M I NA LCO URT NO . 8 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e lla n tC a s e yD e a n T e r ry a p p e a ls f r o m h is c o n v ic t io n f o rd r iv in g w h ile i n to x i c a ted . I n thre e p o i n ts, he arg u e s th a t t h e t r ia l c o u r t erred b yfai l i n g to gr anthi s m ot i onsf orm i st r i al( 1) aft ert he ar r es t i ng of f i ce rt es t i f i ed con ce r ni ng t he per cent age of peop l e w hose bl ood
- al coho l l evel i s over. 10 per centw hen t hey f ai l t he hor i zont al gaze nystagm us t estand ( 2) aft ert he S t at e el i ci t ed2 ... A p p e l l a n t do e s n o t ch a ll e n g e the su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to

su pporthi s con vi ct i on. Thus , a cur so ry r evi ew of t he f ac t s w i l l s uf f i cet o put h i s p o i n ts i n to co n tex t. 2 t e s t i m o n y fro m o n e o f A p p e l l a n t’s w i tn e s s e s a b o u t th e w i tn e s s ’s p ri o r D W I convi ct i on and ( 3) t hatr epeat ed pr osecut or i al m i scondu ctt hr oug hou tt r i al
m a n d a te sre v e rs a l o f h i sc o n v i c ti o n . W e a ffir m . Back gr ound 2 A p p e lla n ta n d h isp a s s e n g e rw e r e in v o lv e d in a m o t o rv e h ic le c o llis io n in t he ear l y m or ni ng hou r s of January 10 , 20 06 . Pol i ce of f i cer Jam es R ussel l w as di sp at che d t o t he ac c i d e n t s c ene . O f f i ce rRuss el l t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l ant “s e e m ed a l i t t l e d i so r i ent ed and co nf us ed”an d t hathi s sp ee ch w ass l ur r ed. O f f i cer R ussel l sai d t hat he sm el l ed a ver y st r ong odorofal coho l i c bever ages o n A p p e lla n t ’s b r e a t h a n d s a w t h a tA p p e lla n th a d d if f ic u lt ym a in t a in in g h is bal ance, st agg e re d w hen he w al ked, and had to gr ab t he concr et e m edi an bar r i erf orsupportsever al t i m es dur i ng t hei rconve rs a tio n . A ppel l ant ’ s eyes, te s ti fi e d O ffice r R u s s e l l , w e re “ re a l d i l a te d ,”v e ryw a te ry , a n d b l o o d s h o t. O f f i ce rRuss el l su sp ec t ed t hat A ppe l l antw as“ ext r em el y i nt oxi ca t ed”an d deci ded t o adm i ni st ert he usual bat t ery of f i el d sobr i et y t est s. H e t est i f i ed t hat A pp el l a n tsho w ed si x “c l ue s” o fi ntox i ca t i on du r i ng t he ho r i zon t al ga ze
n y s t a g m u st e s t ; h a d d if f ic u lt yf o llo w in g t h e in s t r u c t io n sa n d m a in t a in i n g h is3

b a l a n c e o n th e w a l k -a n d -tu rn te s t; a n d h o p p e d , l o s t h i sb a l a n c e , ra i s e d o n e a rm , a n d f e ll in t o a c o n c r e t e b a r r i e r o n t h e o n e -le g -s t a n d t e s t . O f f ic e rR u s s e ll
a r r e s t e d A p p e lla n tf o rd r iv in g w h ile in t o x ic a t e d a n d t r a n s p o rt e d h im t o t h e ja il. A t th e j a i l , A p p e l l a n t re fu s e d to ta k e a b re a th te s t. The St at e c har ged A ppe l l antby com pl ai ntw i t h dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi ca t ed. A j ur y f oun d A ppel l ant gui l t y, and t he t r i al court sent enced hi m t o ni net y days’
c o n fi n e m e n t s u s p e n d e d fo r tw e n tyfo u r m o n th sa n d a $ 5 0 0 fi n e . D i sc us si on I n h i s fi rst po i n t, A p p e l l a n t a rgu e s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rterred b yfai l i n g to gr anthi s m ot i on f orm i st r i al aft er O f f i cer R ussel l t est i f i ed t hat“[ a] tf ourcl ues, i n 1 9 9 8 t her e va l i da t i on o ft he[ ho r i z on t a l g a z e n ys t a gm us ] t e s tb y NH TSA i ndi ca t est hata per so n i s 88 per ce nt - - . ” A ppe l l antobj ec t ed t o t he t es t i m ony, th e tri a l c o u rt s u s ta i n e d th e o bj e c t i o n a n d i n s tru c te d th e j u ryto d i s re g a rd O f f i cerRu ssel l ’ s st at em ent , and A ppel l ant m oved f or a m i st r i al , w hi ch t he t r i al
c o u rt d e n i e d . A n appel l at e courtr evi ew s a t r i al court ’ s ru l i ng on a m ot i on f orm i st r i al
u s i n g a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . Web bv. S tate , 232 S. W . 3d 109, 112 ( Tex. Cr i m . A p p . 2007) . The app el l at e c ourtvi ew s t he evi den cei n t he l i ght
m o s t f a v o r a b le t o t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s r u lin g a n d u p h o ld s t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s r u lin g if i t w a sw i th i n t h e zo n e o f re a s o n a b l e d i s a g re e m e n t. Id. ; Wea d v. S tate , 1294

S. W . 3d 126, 129 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ). T he app el l at e c ourtdoe s not
su bs t i t ut e i t s j udgm entf ort hatof t he t r i al cou rtbutr at herde ci desw het hert he tri a l c o u rt’sd e c i s i o n w a sa rb i tra ryo r u n re a s o n a b l e . Webb , 232 S. W . 3d a t112. M i st r i al i s appr opr i at e onl y fo r h ighl y pr ej udi ci al and i ncur abl e er r or s. Si mp so nv. S tate , 1 1 9 S .W .3 d 2 6 2 , 2 7 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 2 U .S . 9 0 5 (2 0 0 4 ). A tr i a l c o u rt m a y g ran t a m i stri a l w h e n i t i s fa c e d w i th
a n e r r o rs o p r eju d ic ia l t h a tt h e e x p e n d it u r e o f f u rt h e r t im e a n d e x p e n s e w o u ld b e w a s te fu l a n d fu ti l e . Id. The ge ner alr ul e, how eve r , i s t hatan y e r r ori n t he adm i ssi on of i m pr operevi dence m ay be cor r ect ed by w i t hdr aw i ng t he evi dence
a n d i n s tru c ti n g th e j u ryto d i s re g a rd i t. S e eRo j a s v. S tate , 986 S. W . 2d 241, 2 5 0

– 5 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). W h e n a tri a l co u rtstri k e s e v i d e n c e an d i n stru c ts th e j u ry to d i sre g a rd i t, i n t he abs enc e o fev i den cei ndi ca t i ng t hatt he m em ber s of t he j ury f ai l ed t o do
s o , th e j u ry i sp re s u m e d to h a v e fo l l o w e d th e tri a l c o u rt’si n s tru c ti o n . See L add
v. S tate , 3 S .W .3 d 5 4 7 , 5 6 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 529 U. S. 1070 ( 199 9) ; S ta tev. Boyd, 2 0 2 S .W .3 d 3 9 3 , 4 0 2 ( T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 6 , p e t.
re f’d ). A ppel l antpoi nt s t o no evi dence t hatt he j ur y f ai l ed t o f ol l ow t he t r i al
court ’ s i nst r uct i on t o di sr egar d O f f i cerRu ssel l ’ s st at em ent , and our ow n r evi ew o ft h e re c o r d f in d sn o n e . M o r e o v e r , O f f ic e rR u s s e ll d id n o tc o m p le t e h is5

se nt enc e b ef or e Appel l antobj ec t ed, an d hi s i nco m pl et e s ent ence w asnotof
su c h a h i g h l yp r ej u d i c i a l c h a r a c t e rt h a ti twa swa s t e f u l a n d f u t i l e t o c o n t i nue th e tri a l . See Si

mps on , 11 9 S . W . 3d at 27 2. W e t her ef or e hol d t hatt he t r i al
cou rtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on b y re f us i ng t o gr antA ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on f or
m i stri a l , a n d w e o v e rr u l e h i s fi rst po i n t. I n h is s e c o n d p o i n t, A p p e l l a n t arg u e s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di sc r et i on byf ai l i ng to g r anta m i st r i alaft ert he pr os ec ut oras ke d oneof A p p e lla n t ’s w it n e s s e sw h e t h e rh e h a d b e e n c o n v ic t e d f o rd r iv i n g w h ile i nt oxi ca t ed. M or gan Robert s t es t i f i ed t hatheha d be en dr i nki ng w i t h Appel l ant
o n the n i g h t i n q u e sti o n a n d th a t A p p e l l a n t ap p e a red to b e “o k a y ” w h e n h e l e ft, dr i vi ng hi s passenger ’ s car because t he passengerw as dr unk. A ppel l antl at er tel e p h o n e d R o b e rt s a n d told h i m h e h a d b e e n i n a n a c c i d e n t. R o b e rt s d rov e to t he scene oft he acci dent, saw A ppel l antt al ki ng t o a pol i ce of f i cer , and deci ded t o dr i ve on by. Th e f ol l ow i ng col l oqu y occur r ed on R oberts ’s c r ossexa m i nat i on: Q . W hy di dn’ tyou st op and getof fand say, “O f f i cer s, t hatm an i s noti nt oxi cat ed?” A . I di dn’ tknow t hat w as r eal l y a - - i n m y opi ni on, i f you see a bunc h of pol i ce of f i ce r s, I
- - I hav en’ t bee n put i n t h a t s i t uat i on m anyt i m es , butI don’ tus ual l y pu l l ove rw hen of f i ce r s ar e a tt he l oca t i on.6

Q . W el l , you s ay t hatyou ha ve n ’t be en puti n t hats i t uat i on m a n yti m e sw i th p o l i c e o ffice rs. . . .

. . . . N ow , I sn ’ t i t t r ue t hatyou , you r se l f , ha ve bee n c onvi ct ed f or D W I ? A ppel l an to bj e c t e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n a si r r e l e v a n ta n d mo r e p r ej u d i c i a l t han p rob a ti v e , a n d the tr i a l co u rt su sta i n e d the o bj e c ti o n an d i n stru c ted the j u ry to di sr egar d t he quest i on. A ppel l antt hen m oved fora m i st r i al, w h ic h t he t r i al
c o u rt d e n i e d . “G ener al l y, any er r ori n aski ng an i m pr operquest i on i s cur ed and r ender ed har m l ess by an i nst r uct i on t o di sr egar d, ” a n d a def endan tcom pl ai ni ng of an i m pr operquest i on oransw erm ustshow obvi ous har m t hat coul d not be cur ed b y a n i n s tru c ti o n to d i s re g a rd . McIn to shv. S ta te, 855 S. W . 2d 753 , 770 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as1993 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( ci t i ng Ran s o m v. S ta te, 789 S. W . 2d 572, 585 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1989 ) ) . A ss um i ng t hatt he que st i on a bouta pr i orco nvi ct i on
w as i m pr oper , A ppel l anthas notshow n obvi ous har m t hat coul d not be cur ed b ya n i n s tru c ti o n t o d i s re g a rd . N o th i n g i n th e re c o rd s u g g e s tsth a t th e j u ry fa i l e d to o b e yth e tri a l c o u rt’si n s tru c ti o n to d i s re g a rd th e q u e s ti o n . See L add, 3 S .W .3 d at 5 6 7 . W e t h e refo re h o l d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts d is cret i on by de ny i ng A pp el l an t ’ s m oti on f or m i str i al , an d w e ov err ul e h is
se c o n d p o i n t.3 ... A p p e l l a n t ra i s e d th i sc o m p l a i n t i n a m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l . 7 I n hi s t hi r d poi nt , A ppe l l antar gue s t hathi s “c onv i ct i on s houl d be
o v e rtu rn e d b e c a u s e o f re p e a te d p ro s e c u to ri a l m i s c o n d u c t th ro u g h o u t th e tri a l .” T h e a lle g e d m is c o n d u c tis(1 ) O f f ic e rR u s s e ll’s t e s t im o n yd is c u s s e d in A ppe l l ant ’ s f i r stpoi nt ; ( 2) t he pr o s ec ut or ’ s que st i on di sc us se d i n hi s se con d poi nt ; ( 3) t he St at e’ s f ai l ur e t o di sc l os e b ef or e t r i alt he f a c t th a t o n e oft he St at e’ s w i t nes se s— hi s pas se nge ratth e ti m e o ft he ac ci den t
— had a pr i or c o n v i c ti o n for the ft; an d ( 4) ar gum ental l ege dl y ou t si de t he r ec or d w hen t he 3 p r o s e c u t o rs a id d u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n t , “ N o w , t h a t ’s t h r e e s t a n d a r d iz e d f ie ld
s o b ri e tyte s tsa n d t h e o p i n i o n o f fo u r s o b e r p e o p l e . O k a y ? ” T h e tri a l c o u rt
su st ai ned A ppe l l ant ’ s obj ec t i on t o t hi s sta t em entasout si de t he r ec or d a nd i ns t r uct ed t he j ury t o di sr ega r d i t but den i ed hi s m ot i on f orm i st r i al . Appel l ant
ar gue s t hatt hes e f ouri ns t anc es , co ns i der ed t oge t her , s how a “ p att er n of g o v e rn m e n t m i s c o n d u c t” th a t re q u i re sa n e w tri a l . W e h a v e alr e a d yd e term i n e d tha t t h e t ri a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts d i sc r et i on byr ef us i ng t o gr anta m i st r i alon t he bas i s ofO f f i ce rRus s e l l ’s t es t i m ony ort he pr os ec ut or ’ s que st i on a bout R o bert s’ s D W I co nvi ct i on. A p p e lla n ta d m it st h a th e w a sn o th a r m e d b yt h e S t a t e ’s f a ilu r e t o d is c lo s e h is pas se nge r ’ s t heftco nvi ct i on be ca us e h e d i sc ove r ed t he con vi ct i on on hi s ow n8

bef or e t r i al . W i t h r ega r d t o t he ar gum ent out si de t he r ec or d, A ppe l l ant doe s not exp l ai n how t he ar gum ent w as out si de t he r ec or d nor — m or e s i gni f i ca nt l y— w hy t he t r i al court ’ s i nst r uct i on t o di sr egar d w as an i nadeq uat e r em edy; t her ef or e,
w e p re s u m e th a t th e i n s tru c t i o n to d i s re g a rd w a ss u fficie n t. See L add, 3 S. W . 3d a t567. Thus , co ns i der ed se par at el y, noneoft he al l ege d i ns t anc esof pr osecut or i al m i scondu ctj ust i f i es a new t r i al . C onsi der ed t ogether , t he i sol at ed and unr el at ed al l ege d i ns t anc esofm i s c o n d u c tdo n ots how a patt er n of
c o n d u c t th a t d e p ri v e d A p p e l l a n t o f a f a i r a n d i m p a rti a l tri a l . W e th e re fo re o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s th i rd p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f A p p e l l a n t’sp o i n ts , w e a f fi rm th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. P E RCU R I AM PA N EL A : G A RD N ER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d DA U PH I N O T, J. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 17, 2008