### NUM BER 13-08- 0065 3-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
DOU GLAS SA ND ER, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 2 of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza App ellant , Douglas San der, was charged byinforma tion wi th d riv ing w hile int ox ic ated based on his inv olv ement in a m otor ve hic le acc ide nt. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 49.04 (V er n o n 2 003)

. Sander pl eaded n ot g uil ty

to the c harg es. A jur y found San der guilty

of the of fense , and the trial court asse ssed p unis hm entat 180 days’ conf inem ent in a Nuece s Count y Jail and imp osed a $1,0 00 f ine. T he trial cou rt’s senten ce2

wa s s u s p e n d e d a n d S a n d e r was p la c e d o n c o m m u n it y s u p e rvi s io n fo r o n e ye a r. By two is sues , Sa n d er

co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r by admi tti ng : (1 ) hearsay st atements of the d rive r o f t h e othe r car

i nv olv ed i n the ac ci dent; and (2 ) the
res ul ts o f a bl oo d te s t ta k en a t th e l oc al h os pi ta l

. W e affi r m.

I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On D ecember

28, 2007, at ap prox imat ely 11:3 0 p.m. , O ff ic er

Vi cto r Ca sares of the Cor pus Chr is ti Poli ce Depa rt ment w as dis patc hed t o a mi nor two- car ac ci dent in Cor pus Ch ri s t i, T e xa s
. Up o n a rr iva l, O f f ic e r Ca s a re s fo u n d two wre c k e d ve h ic le s in t h e ro a d wa y. Off ic er Cas ares spok e to Sander and the dr iv er of t he other car inv olv ed in t h e ac cident to di sc ov er

w hat h ad happ ened. At tr ial , Off ic er Cas ares tes ti fied, ov er obj ect ion , t hat t he dr iv er of the o ther

ca r tol d him that she w as dr iv ing east bound o n Li pes Boul ev ard and that,
w hen she atte mp ted t o ma ke a lef t-turn on Spa nishwood, San der atte mp ted to “ov ertake her and str uck

her v ehi cl e.” W hil e sp e aki ng to Sander at the s cene, Officer

C asares noti ced that Sander

smel led of alc ohol and immedi atel y req uest ed bac kup. Of f icers Ant hon y San ders and Arma ndo Vasque z arriv ed at the scene sh o rtly thereafter. Officer

Vas q uezper

formed th re e fiel d s obr iety tes ts on San der

to deter mine if he w as int ox ic ated. O ff ic er Vas q ueznoti ced that Sander : (1 ) had tro ubl e standi ng ; ( 2) sl ur re d his speec h; and (3 ) had g los sy ey es. Sander admitted that he w as the d ri v er of one of the v ehi cl es inv olv ed i n the ac ci dent and t hat h e had dr unk alc ohol before the a cc ide nt. Base d on the o bser

v ati ons made by Off ic ers V asq uezand Cas ares and on Sander ’s poor per formance on th e fiel d s obr iety tes ts, i t w as deter mined that Sander w as int ox ic ated, and he w as subs eq uentl y

ar re ste d. Beca use Sander

w as inv olv ed i n an automobi le acc ide nt, Off icer Vas q ueztookSandersi gned a con sent f or m aut hor i z i ng l aw enf or cem ent t o col l ect t he b l ood sam pl e. 1 3 Sa n d e r to Bay

Area H ospi tal to be c heck ed for inj ur ies

. W hil e at the h ospi tal , O ff ic er Vasque zrequested thatSand er provi de law enforcem entw ith a bloo d sam ple to accurate ly deter mine w hether

he w as int ox ic ated. O ff ic er Vas q uezthen read Sa nder v ar iou s
w ar nin g s and ins tr uct ion s per tai nin g to the c oll ect ion of the b loo d s ample; Sande r ag re ed to prov ide the blo od s ample. 1 Gerald Sch roep fer, a registe re d n u rs e a t the Bay Area Hosp ital, too k Sand er’s blo od sa m p le

. Of

ficers S anders a nd R ay mond H ar ri son w ere bot h presentdur ing the col lecti on of Sander ’s bl ood s ample. O ff ic er Sande rs si g ned a documenti ndi cat ing that he w as a w it ness to the b loo d draw
. Schroepfer t est ified that he made notati ons on th e v ial of blood and t hat t he v ial w as dated Dec ember 28, 2007, at 12:39 a.m. Schroepfer fur ther testif ied th at, o nce th e bloo d w as coll e c ted , he wrapp ed u p the conta iner and han ded it
ov er to law enforc ement. Efrai n Pe rez , a foren s i cs c i en ti s t w i th the Te x as D ep ar tm en t of P ub l i cS afe ty

C r i me Laborator

y (“ TDPS Cr ime Lab” ), testi fied that the v ial of bl ood w as re cei v ed on Janua ry 4, 2008. Pere z n o ted that, upon re cei pt of bl ood s amples , t echni ci ans are train ed to immedia te ly p lace t he v ial s i n the refri g erator at a s peci fied te mpera ture i n the l ock ed evidence vault. Perez analyz ed th e bloo d sam ple on Ja nua ry 10, 20 08, and base d on his anal y si s, Sander

had a bl ood al cohol co ncent ra ti on of 0.22 g ra ms of al cohol per

100 mil li meters o f blood on th e ev eni ng of the a cc ide nt, w hic h w as ov er the leg al li mit. Pe re z further tes ti fied th at i t app e ared th at S ander ’s bl ood s ample had bee n treated w it h anti coag ula nts —pot ass ium ox ala te an d s odi um fluor ide—to prev ent c oag ula ti on and deg ra dati on of the sampl e from oc cur ri ng
.4

On Jan uary 28 , 2 0 0 8 , S and er w as cha rg ed b y informa tion wi th drivi ng w hile int ox ic ated, a c las s B mis demeanor , and w as subs eq uentl y conv icted of t he offense. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 49.04 (V er non 2003). Sander ’s rig ht t o appea l w as cer ti fied by the tr ial co urt on Oct ober

15, 2008. This appeal ens ued.

II. S TA NDA RD O F R EVI EW B o t h o f S a n d e r ’ s i s s u e s p e rt a i n t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s a d m i s s i o n o f c e rt a i n e v i d e n c e
. W e
re v iew a tr ial cour

t' s deci si on to admit or ex cl ude ev ide nce under an abuse o f disc re ti on stan dard

. Opr

ean v . St ate , 201 S.W .3d 724 , 726 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07). A trial court's deci si on w il l be uphe ld unl ess i t l ies outs ide the "z one of reason abl e di sag re ement." Id. III
. A N AL Y S IS A . Hears ay

Statements In h i s fi rs t i s s u e , S a n d e r a s s e rt s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt c o mm i t t e d re v e rs i b l e e r ro r by admitti ng hearsaystatement s made by Officer C asares at t ri al. Sp eci fical ly , Sa nder compl ain s a bout Off ic er C asares’ s recoun ti ng of the sta tements of the ot her dr iv er i nv olv ed in the ac ciden t regarding the det ails of the accid entand , in particula r, the ot her driv er’s
ass erti on th at S ander

had been dr iv ing the car t hat h ad hi t her

. The Stat e c ounters b y
arg uin g thatSande r made a p re mature obj ect ion , w hic h di d notpreser ve e rro r and t hat,
ev en i f error

had been preser

v ed, s uch er ro r w oul d hav e been har mles s. 1. Pre serv ation of Error The foll ow ing ex chang e i s t he bas is for S ander ’s co mplai nt: Q : [ S t a t e ’ s c o u n s e l ] Di d y o u a lso speakw it h the othe r dr iv er that nig ht? A: [Of f icer Casares] Yes. Q: And w hathap pen ed wi th he r?5

A : S h e ga ve m e h e r s id e o f t h e st o ry? Q: And c an y ou te ll the jur y i n y our opi nio n as to y our inv est ig ati on w hat h appened? [Coun sel for San der]: W ell, once again, I’m going to object. He’s say ing he t alk ed to both si des. So anythi ng thathe s ay s n ow wou ld be hearsay from t hose peopl e. T H E C O U R T : Y ouro bj e c t i o n ’ s o v e r r u l e d

. Y o u may answer, sir

. A: The dr iv er , number two, t he female, said she w as dr iv ing eas tbound on Lipes and she w as g oin g to make a l eft on t he s treet, I t hin k i t w as Spani shwood. I’ d hav e to re v iew my repor t t o be exact. And she said t h e num ber on e driv er, w hic h i s the defendant, tr ied to ov ertak e her and str uck her v ehi cl e. San der conten ds tha t this exchange resulte d in the adm ission of in adm issible hearsay tes ti mony
. He furt h e r urg es that thi s t est imony w as the o nly

ev ide nce that the Stat e prov ide d to cor ro borate e a r l i e r tes ti mony per tai nin g to Sander ’s admi ss ion thathe w as the d ri v er

of o n e of the v ehi cl es inv olv ed. See C ole m an v . St ate , 704 S.W .2d 5 11, 5 12 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 198 6, pe t. re f ’d ) (“[ T]he c or pus del icti of dr unken dr iv ing consists o f

the fact th ats o m e o n e op erate d a m oto r v ehicle in a p ublic place w hile int ox ic ated. The ac cus ed’ s c onfe ss io n c a n not, it sel f, esta bli sh suc h fact. ”)

. As a resul t, Sander arg ues tha t Off ice r Cas ares’ s t est imony aboutw hat t he ot her

dr iv er tol d hi m w as inad missi b le h earsa y

testim ony, and beca use th e Sta te failed to corroborat e San der’s admis si on th at he w as the dr iv er , the Stat e faile d to prov e that Sander w as the d ri v er of the
v ehi cl e. The Stat e arg ues that the q uest ion i mmediat ely precedi ng Sande r’ s o bje cti on di d not6

cal l for i n a d m issibl e hearsay
. It further arg ues that the q uest ion w as merel y des ig ned t o eli ci t O ff ic er

C asares’ s o pin ion aboutw hat h ad happ ened t hat e v eni ng
. Beca use the question w as no t designed to elicit ina d m is sible he arsay, the Sta te asse rts that Sa nde r’s obje ction was prema ture an d, th erefore, did not pre serv e error. W e ag re e. To preser

v e an er ro r for appe ll ate rev iew , a par ty must presenta t imel y obj ect ion to the tr ial court , state the spec ificgrounds for the obj ect ion , and obtain a rul ing

. Trevino v. State , 1 7 4 S. W .3 d 92 5 , 9 2 7 ( T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 5 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a) ; Blue v

. St ate , 41 S. W .3d 129 , 131 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00) (en b a n c ))

. “A ll a par ty has to do to av oid the forfeiture of a c omplai nt on appeal is to letthe tr ial j udg e k now wha t h e w a n ts , why he th in ks h im se lf e n ti tl e d to it, an d to do so cle a rly en o u gh fo r th e ju d ge to un dersta nd hi m at a ti me w hen t he tr ial co urt i s i n a p ro per pos it ion to do s omethi ng abo ut it.” Id. (quo ti n g Keeter v. Sta te , 175 S.W .3d 7 56, 7 60 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ). The Stat e’s ques ti on to Of ficer Casares about his opi nio n reg ardin g the inv est ig ati on
w a s n o t d e signed to el ic ithearsay tes ti mony ; i t w as desi g ned t o al low Officer C asares to comment on hi s i nv est ig ati on and how Sander became a s uspect. See O sbour n v . St ate , 92 S. W .3d 5 31, 5 36- 37 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ( noti ng that the tes ti mony

of a pol ic e off ic er based on his ex per ien ce is admi ss ibl e as a l ay opi nio n) ; Ventr

oy v. State , 917 S.W .2d 4 19, 422 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1996, pet. ref’d) ( sta ti ng that a pol ic e off ic er can tes ti fy as both a l ay and ex per

t w it ness bas ed on personal kn ow led g e and ex per ien ce from many prev iou s
acc ide nt i nv est ig ati ons) ; see als o Din ki ns v. State , 894 S.W .2d 3 30, 3 47 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 5); Lee v. State , 29 S. W .3d 570 , 577 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 00, no pe t.) (“Police of f icers maytes ti fy to ex pla in how the inv est igati on beg an and how the defendant bec ame a suspe ct.” )

. B ec au s e th e St at e’ s q ue s ti on o f O ffic er C as ares w as n otd es i g ne d to e l i c itAr guabl y , O ff i cerC asar es’ s t est i m onyr egar di ng t he st at em ent s m ade by t he ot her dr i v erm ay not 2 const i t ut e i nadm i ssi bl e he ar say ev i dence because t he t est i m onyexpl ai ned how t he d ef endan t cam e t o be a s u s p e c t. S e e D in k in s v . S ta te , 894 S. W

. 2d 3 30, 347 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 199 5) ( “ An ext r a[
- ] j udi ci al st at em ent orwr i t i ng whi ch i s off er ed f ort he p ur pose ofshowi ng w hat w a s s a i d r a t h e r t h a n f o r t h e t r ut h of t he m att er st at ed t her ei n do es no t const i t ut e hear say
. . . . [ W ] e exp l ai ned ‘ an e xt r a-j udi ci al st at em ent orwr i t i ng m ay be adm i t t ed a s ci r cum st ant i al ev i dence f r om whi ch an i nf er ence m ay be dr awn, and not f ort he t r ut h of t he m at t er st at e d , t h e r e i n , w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g t h e h e a r s a y r u l e
. . . . W e h e l d t h a t e x t r a - j u d i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s w e r e n ot i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a rs a y b e c a u s e th e y w e re a d m i tte d n o t to p ro v e th e tru th o f t h e m a tte r a s s e rte d , b u t ra th e r to expl ai n ho w t he d ef endan t cam e t o be a suspect

. ” ) ( quot i ng G h o ls o n v . S ta te , 542 S. W

. 2d 3 95, 398 ( T ex. C rim

. A p p
. 1 9 7 6 )) (c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ) (e m p h a s i s i n o rig i n a l ); see a lso L e e v . S ta te , 29 S. W

. 3d 5 70, 577 ( T ex. A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.). 7 hearsay tes ti mony , w e c oncl ude t hat S ander ’s obj ect ion w as premature. W e are mi ndful t hat a fter the tri al cour t ov er ru led Sande r’ s o bje cti on, O ff ic er C asares
w ent o n to tes ti fy as to t he s tatement s made to him by the other dr iv er
. H ow ev er , Sa nder

2 nei ther re- ass erted h is obj ect ion dur ing or a fte r Of

ficer C asares’ s t est imony

as to the sta tements m ade bythe other dr iv er nor mov ed to st ri ke the t est imony

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) (1 ); see als o D ink ins , 894 S.W .2d a t 355 ( sta ti ng thatan o bje ction shoul d be
ma de a s soon as the ground for t he obje ction beco me s a ppa rent, a nd if a que stion clea rly calls for an objection a b le r e s p o nse, the objection shou ld be m ade before the w itness
re spond s) ; Ethi

ngton v. State , 819 S.W .2d 8 54, 8 58 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 1991) (p ro v idi ng that if i t w as not p oss ibl e to make a ti mely obj ect ion and the e v ide nce is actual ly admi tted, the defense mus t obj ect as soon as the obj ect ion abl e nature of t he ev ide nce became apparent and mov e to str ik e the e vidence)

. Beca use w e hav e found tha t Sa nder ’s obj ect ion w as prem atu re, w e con clude thatSand er has no t preserved this issue for app eal. 2. H arm fu l Er ro r A nal ysis How ev er , ev en i f Sander h a d p re se rved t his i ss ue for appeal , any er ro r in the admis si on of the tes ti mony i n q uest ion w as har mles s e rror
. Rul e 44.2(b ) of the appe ll ate rules ma nda tes th at w e disregard any non-con stitutio nal error u nless it a f fects ap pellan t’s
su b sta nti al ri g hts

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4

. 2 ( b )

. A n e r ro r i n t h e a d mi s s i o n o r

e x c l u s i o n ofT hi s t est i m onyi s not chal l enged on appea l

. However , wi t h r espect t o Sande r ’ s ar gum ent t hat t he 3 St at e f ai l ed t o cor r obor at e hi s ext r a-j udi ci al conf essi on at t he acci dent scene t hat he was t he d r i v erof one of th e ve h i c l e s i n v o l v e d , see C o l e m a n v . S ta te , 7 0 4 S .W .2 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 2 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 8 6 , p e t. r ef ’ d) , we no t e t hat , base d on hi s i nv est i gat i on, O ff i cerC asar es i dent i f i ed Sand eras t he d r i v erwi t hout obj ect i on a nd t hat S anderw as t he onl y one near hi s vehi cl e. T exas co ur t s hav e he l d t hat si m i l arev i dence w a s s u ff i c i e n t to c o rr o b o ra te a d e fe n d a n t’ s e x tra -ju d i c i a l c o n fe s s i o n
. S e e S a n d o v a l v . S ta te , 422 S. W

. 2d 4 58, 459 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 196 7) ( hol di ng t hat def endan t ’ s st at em ent at t he a cci dent scene was cor r obor at ed b y e v i d e n c e th a t t h e c a r w a s re g i s te re d i n h i s n a m e a n d th a t n o o n e e l s e w a s p re s e n t a t t h e s c e n e ); see a lso R e y e s v . S ta te , N o. 11- 07- 00367
- C R , 2008 T ex. App. LEX I S 5944, at * * 2- 6 ( T ex. App. –East l and Aug. 7, 200 8, pet

. r ef ’ d) ( m em
. op. , not desi gnat ed f orpubl i cat i on) ( di st i ngui shi ng C ol em an and aff i r m i ng a conv i ct i on f or d r iv in g w h ile in to x ic a te d w h e n th e o n ly e v id e n c e s u g g e s tin g t h a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d a c tu a lly d r iv e n th e v e h ic le w a s d e fe n d a n t s ta n d i n g b y th e v e h i c l e a n d th e f a c t th a t th e re w e re n o o th e r p e o p l e i n th e a re a ); Youens v. S ta te , 9 8 8 S .W .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 ( T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D is t. ] 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t .) ( h o ld in g th a t t h e d e f e n d a n t’s a d m i s s i o n a t t h e s c e n e th a t h e w a s d rivin g h i s tru c k w h e n th e a c c i d e n t h a p p e n e d w a s s u ff i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to 8 ev ide nce is s u bject t o the har m anal y si s s et forth i n r ule 44.2 (b ). Johns on v . St ate , 967 S.W .2d 4 10, 4 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) ; Dor ado v . St ate , 84 3 S. W .2 d 37 , 38 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 199 2 ). A subs tanti al ri g ht i s a ffect ed w hen t he er ro r has a s ubst anti al and i nju ri ous effector i nfluenc e i n det er mini ng the jur y ’s v erdict. Ki

ng v . St ate , 953 S. W .2 d 26 6 , 2 71 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Kotteakos v. U nited St ates , 32 8 U .S

. 7 5 0 , 776 ( 1946) ). I f other proper ly admitted ev ide nce prov es the same facts, the er ro r is har mles s. See M atz
v. State , 21 S.W .3d 911, 912 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; Br ooks v. Sta te , 990 S.W .2d 2 78, 2 87 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. Addi ti onal ly , “ ‘w e s houl d notrev erse a c onv icti on for the e rroneous adm ission of

ev iden ce if

the ap pellat e cou rt, af

ter examinin g the record as a w hole , has fair
assura nce th at th e error did not inf luen ce the jury , or had buta slig ht ef fect.’” Cob b v

. St ate , 8 5 S. W .3 d 25 8 , 2 7 2 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o ti n g Johns on , 967 S.W .2d a t 417 ). The record reflect s that Off ic er Cas ares ide nti fied San der as the dr iv er

of one of the
v ehi cl es w it hout obje cti on and re cal led that , w hen he ar ri v ed, h e s aw Sande r w as sta ndi ng by his v ehicle. In fact, th e on ly peo ple atthe scen e w hen Of f icer Casares arriv ed were Sander , th e d ri v er

of the o ther

ca r, and the o ther

dr iv er ’s hus band. F urther more, Officer Cas ares tes ti fied, o v er

obj ect ion , that Sander

admitted to him at the scene t hat h e w as the dr iv er of one of

the v ehi cl es inv olv ed i n the ac ci dent. Be caus e Officer C asares ide nti fied 3e s ta b lis h th a t h e w a s o p e r a tin g th e v e h ic le ) . In a n y e v e n t, b e c a u s e w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t O ff ic e r C a s a r e s ’s

te s tim o n y p e r ta in in g to th e o th e r d r iv e r ’s id e n tif ic a tio n o fS a n d e r a s th e d r iv e r w a s n o t t im e ly o b j e c te d to , t h is t est i m ony , whet herornot i t was he ar say , was pr obat i v e ev i dence ofwhi ch t o c orrob ora t e S ander ’ s ext r aju d i c i a l c o n fe s s i o n a n d w a s p ro p e rlyb e fo re th e ju ry. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 8 0 2 ; s e e a ls o P o in d e x te r v . S ta te , 153 S. W

. 3d 402, 409 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 5) ( “ T he t r i al j udge has n o du t y t o excl ude [ hear say ] on hi s own, and

. . . [o ]n c e a d m itt e d w ith o u t o b j e c tio n , s u c h e v id e n c e e n j o ys a s ta tu s e q u a l to th a t o fa ll o th e r a d m is s ib le ev i dence

. . . . I n par t i cul ar [ , ] i t has pr obat i v e v al ue and wi l l supp or t a j udgm ent i n f av orof t he p ar t y off er i ng i t

. ”)

. 9 Sander as the dr iv er

of one of the v ehi cl es inv olv ed i n the ac ci dent w it hout obj ect ion , t he all eg ed er ro r, i f any , i s h ar mles s. See Brooks , 990 S.W .2d a t 287 ; Ma tz , 21 S.W .3d at 912;
see als o C obb , 85 S.W .3d a t 272

. W e ov er ru le Sander ’s first is sue. B. T he Adm issio n of

San der ’s B lo od Sam pl e In to Ev id ence In hi s s econd iss ue, Sander contends that the tri al cour t committ ed rev ersi ble er ro r by admi tti ng the re sul ts of a blo od tes t tak en at the Bay Area H ospi tal

. Spec ific all y , Sa nder
ass erts that : (1 ) the c hai n of cus tody w as broken from the ti me hi s s ample w as tak en and the ti me the cr ime lab orator y re cei v ed the s ample on J anuar y 4, 2008; and ( 2) the lab el on the v ial indicate d th a tS a n d er’s blood had bee n drawn approximat ely tw ent y -three h ours before the acciden t had transpired . Th e Sta te argues th a tt h e t rial court did no t err in admitti ng Sander’ s blood sample becau se the t est imony at tr ial es tabl is hed t he beg inn ing and end of the c hai n of cus tody , and Sander failed to adduc e ev ide nce demonst ra ti ng that the s ample w as tampered w it h or al tered. 1. Chain of Custod y In orde r for t he results of a b lood t est to be adm itted into evidence , a prop er chain of cust ody

of the b loo d s ample that w as draw n from the acc used and l ater tes ted mus t be est abl is hed. Dur

re tt v. State , 36 S.W .3d 2 05, 2 08 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2001, no pet .) ; Avi

la v. State , 1 8 S .W .3d 736, 73 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2000, no p et.) (p ro v idi ng thata proper ch ain of cus tody

mustbe e sta bli shed to ad mit th e r e su lt s of10

sc ien ti fic tes ti ng ). Proof t hat v ali dates the beg inn ing and the end of t he ch a in of cu st ody
w ill s u p por

t t he admi ss ion of ev ide nce, bar ri ng any ev ide nce of tamper ing or al terati on. Stok er v. Sta te , 788 S .W .2d 1 , 10 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 9), di sappr oved on ot

her gr ounds by Leday

v. Sta te , 983 S.W .2d 7 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) ; Hal l v. State , 13 S.W .3d 1 15, 120 (T e x. App.–F ort W orth 20 00) , pet. dism ’ d as i m pr ovi dentl y gra nted , 46 S.W .3d 2 64 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ; see als o Bena videz v. State , N o. 13 -9 7- 526- CR , 199 9 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 2 833, at * 8 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Apr . 15, 1999, no p et.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. W it hout ev ide nce of tamper ing o r co m m ing li ng , g aps or theoreti cal breaches in t h e c h ain of cus tody g o to the w eig ht of the ev ide nce, not it s admis si bil ity . Lagr

one v. S tate , 942 S.W .2d 602, 617 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Si lv a v . St ate , 989 S. W .2d 6 4, 68 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1998, pet. ref’d) ; Al var ez v. Sta te , 857 S.W .2d 143, 147 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1993, pet. ref’d)

. Addi ti onal ly , a mere show ing of the
o p portu nity for tam pering or comm ingling w ith an oth er blood samp le, ab sentaf f irmat ive
ev ide nce of such , i s n ot s uff ic ien t t o req uire ex cl usi on of the ev ide nce. Dar ro w v. State , 504 S.W .2d 4 16, 4 17 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1974) ; Dos sett v . St ate , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d 7 , 1 8 (T e x. App .–S an An ton io 200 6, pe t. ref ’d) (“ In ad dition , the mere p assage of t ime is no ev iden ce of tam pering.”). 2. Disc ussi on In t he i nst ant c ase, Of

ficer Vasq ueztesti fied that Sander consent ed to gi v e a blood sampl e on the e ven in g o f the ac ci dent. After Sande r w as g iv en v ar iou s w ar nin g s a nd in s t r u c t i o n s re g a rd i n g t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e b l o o d s a mp l e , S c h ro e p fe r d re w t h e b l o od and sto re d i t i n a v ial

. Onc e he finis hed c oll ect ing a s ample of Sander ’s bl ood, Schroepfer lab ele d the v ial w it h Sand er ’s name an d the follo w ing date: D ecember 28, 2007, at 12 :39T he t est i m onyat t r i al est abl i shed t hat Sander ’ s bl ood was dr awn about one hour aft er t he a cci dent 4 occur r ed. T her ef or e, Schr oepf er ’ s l abel i ng o ft he v i al was i ncor r ect

. T he l abel shou l d ha v e r ef l ect ed t hat t he bl ood was dr awn on D ecem ber29, 2007, r at her t han D ecem ber 28, 2007. R egar dl ess, t hi s ev i dence goes t o t he wei ght t o be aff or ded t he e v i dence r at hert han adm i ssi bi l i t y and no ev i dence i ndi cat i ng t hat t he v i al had b e e n ta m p e re d w i th o r a l te re d w a s p re s e n te d

. S e e O c h o a v . S ta te , 394 S

. W

. 2d 172, 174 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 1965) ( “ [ A] di scr epancyas t o t he p ost m ar k on a con t ai nerm ai l ed t o t he Depar t m ent of Publ i c Saf et y di d no t re n d e r th e c h a i n o f c u s to d y i n c o m p l e te .”); D u rre tt v . S ta te , 3 6 S .W .3 d 2 0 5 , 2 1 1 ( T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.); s e e a ls o B e n a v i d e z v . S ta te , N o. 13- 97- 526- C R , 1999 T ex. A pp. LE X I S 2833, at * 8 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Apr

. 15, 1999, no pet

. ) ( m em
. op. , not desi gnat ed f orpub l i cat i on) ( “ T he ch ai n of cust ody i s concl usi v el y pr ov en when t he se i z i ng o ff i cert est i f i es t hat : ( 1) he sei z ed t he p hy si cal ev i dence; ( 2) he has i dent i f i ed h i s per sonal m ar k on t he e v i dence; and (3 ) he pl aced i nt o and r et r i ev ed t he i t em of ev i dence f r om th e p ro p e rty ro o m .”). 11 a
. m. S c h ro e p fe r t h e n g a v e l a w e n fo rc e me n t t h e v i a l fo r t e s t i n g
. Th e TD P S C ri me Lab 4 received the v ial of

Sand er’s blood on Jan uary 4, 2008 , and imm edia tely place d the v ial in
a refrige ra to r. Perezst ated that he te ste d the bl ood s ample on J anuar y 10, 2008, and deter mined that Sander had a bl ood al cohol co ncent ra ti on of 0.22 g ra ms of alc ohol per 100 mil li li ters of bl ood on the ev eni ng of the a cc ide nt. N o ev ide nce w as present ed s ug g est ing that the s ample had been tampered w it h or al tered. Sander ’s arg uments per tai nin g to the fact th at th e cha in of

custod y w as bro k e n f ro m t he tim e the samp le w as take n to when it
w as re cei v ed by the TDPS Cr ime Lab speak to the w eig ht t o the g iv en to the ev ide nce, not it s a dmis si bil ity . See Lagr one , 942 S.W .2d a t 617 ; Silva , 989 S. W .2d a t 68; Al var ez , 857 S.W .2d a t 147

. Beca use the b eg innin g a n d end of the c hai n of cus tody of the b loo d s ample w as est abl is hed, and b e c a use no ev ide nce of tamper ing or al terati on w as adduc ed, w e c oncl ude that the tr ial cour

t did not a buse it s d is creti on i n admi tti ng the re sul ts of the bl ood t est

. See Stok er , 7 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d a t1 0 ; Hall , 1 3 S .W .3d a t 120 ; see als o Bena videz ,1999 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 2 833, at * 8. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Sander ’s se cond is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of Sander ’s i ss ues on appe al, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the12

tr ial co urt.
DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 23rd day

of Jul y , 200 9.