## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
NO . PD- 0379 - 09

BR I AN TH O M AS K I RSCH , Appe l l ant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON AP P ELLANT ’ S P ETI TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ONARY REV I EW

F ROM THE F I RS T COURT OF AP P EALS

HARRI S COUNTY P RI CE , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS , J. , j oi ne d.

DI S S E NT I NG OP I NI ON W hen t he evi dence of t he a p p ell ant ’ s bl ood al cohol conce nt r at i on ( B A C ) w as admi t t ed att r i al , t he j ur yw as i ns t r uct ed t hati t w as t o cons i dert hatevi dence fora l i m i t ed purpos e. T he t r i al j udge neve r r el eas ed t he j ur yfr om t hatr es t r i ct i on— t o t he contr ar y , dur i ng t he St at e’ s fi nal ar gum ent , he r emi nded t he j ur yt hati t w as “s t i l l r equi r ed t o abi de by ” t he lim iti n g in stru c tio n . R e so lu tio n o f th is a p p e a l tu rn s, it se e m s to m e , o n a n a c c u ra te

as s es s m entof t he meani ng and i m por t of t hatl i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on.K i r s c h — 2

T he appel l ant cont ends t hat t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on i nfor m ed t he j ur yt hati t coul d not

cons i dert he B A C evi dence as evi dence of t he appel l ant ’ s B A C at t he t i m e he w as dr i vi ng, but coul d onl ycons i deri t as s om e evi dence t hatt he appe l l anthad cons um ed s o me q u a n tit y
o f a lco h o l at s o me poi nt befor e t he s peci m en of hi s bl ood w as t aken a t t he hos pi t al
. T hus

cons t r ued, t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on w oul d r endert he evi dence of t he appe l l ant ’ s B A C s i m i l ar i n im po rtt o ev i den ce t hat hi s breat h sm el l ed o f al coh ol; t hat i s to say , i t i s r el evant t o t he i s s u e o f i n t o x i c a t i o n , b u t h a r d l y, b y i t s e l f , d e t e r m i n a t i v e . E v i d e n c e h a v i n g t h i s i m p o r t o n l y, t he appel l ant cont ends , cannots uppor t s ubm i s s i on of t he per se t heor y of i nt oxi cat i on under t he D W I s t atut e beca u se, gi ven t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on, t her e w oul d be no evi dence of t he appel l ant ’ s B A C atal l , m uch l es s w hat hi s B A C m i ght have be en att he t i m e he w as dr i vi ng. I t i s t r ue tha t evi dence of B A C att he t i m e t hatt he s peci m en i s dr aw n m ay , even w i t hout evi dence of r et r ogr ade ext r apol at i on, s uppor t s ubm i s s i on of t he per se t heor yof D W I

— t hat is, if it is a c c o m p a n ied b yo th e r, circ u m sta n tial e v id e n c e f r o m w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld

re a so n a b ly d e d u c e th a t th e a c c u se d ’s B A C a t th e tim e th e sp e c im e n w a s ta k e n is lik e lyto refl ect a B A C at t he ti m e he w as dri ving t hat w as at l east . 08. B ut I doubt w e w oul d everbe wi l l i n g t o s a y t h a t , i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y e v i d e n c e o f BAC a t a ll , the ev iden ce ca n su p p o rt a convi ct i on undert he per se t heor yof i nt oxi cat i on. I ful l y agr ee w i t h t he C our t t hat t her e w as no bas i s t o gi ve any lim iti n g in stru c tio n in t hi s cas e. T hati s per haps t he most i m por t ant poi nt , fr om a j ur i s pr udent i al s t andpoi nt , t o beK i r s c h — 3

1 S tew a rt v. S tate , 129 S
. W
. 3d 93, 97 ( T ex. Cri m . A pp. 2004). 2 T EX . R. E V ID . 40 3. 3 G iglio b ian co v. S tate , 2 1 0 S .W .3 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 3 ( T ex . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); State v. Mechler , 15 3 S
. W
. 3d 435 , 449 (Tex
. Cri m . A pp. 2005) ( C ochra n, J. , c oncurri ng)
. t aken f r om t he C our t ’ s opi ni on t oday
. O ur cas e l aw does not r equi r e evi dence of r et r ogr ade ext r apol at i on befor e B A C ev idence can s uppor t s ubm i s s i on of t he per se t heor yof in to x ica tio n in th e ju ryc h a rg e
— a g a in , so lo n g a s the re is oth e r, c irc u m sta n tial ev id e n c e in t he case from w hich a j ury cou l d rat i on al l y i nfer t hat B A C at t he t i m e of d ri ving w as at l east .0 8 o r a b o v e . T h is is n o t to sa yth a t B A C e v id e n c e m u st a lw a y s b e a d m itt e d
. I n c e rta in

1

cas es i t m aybe t hat t he B A C evi dence s houl d be excl uded under R ul e 403. Such evi dence 2

m aypr ove s ubs t ant i al l ym or e pr ej udi ci al t han pr o b ati v e i f t he at t endantci r cumst ant i al evidence d oes not compel l i ngl y s uppor t an i nfer ence t hat B A C att he t i m e of dr i vi ng w as at l eas t
. 08, b ec au se the jurym aybe enc our aged t o uncr i t i cal l yi nfera B A C att he t i m e of dr i vi ng t hat is n o t w el l j us t i fi ed byt he evi dence
. W hen B A C evi dence i s t hus excl uded 3 underR ul e 403, I pr es um e w e w oul d hol d t hat t her e i s no evi dent i ar y bas i s t o s ubm i t t he per
se t h e o r yo f

i n t o x i c a t i o n i n t h e j u r yc h a r g e . He r e , t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t e x c l u d e t h e BA C evi dence on t he bas i s t hati t s p o tential forunfai r pr ej udi ce ove r came i t s pr obat i ve val ue, underR ule 4 0 3
. M o r eover , I cannoti m agi ne on t he fa ct s of t hi s cas e t hathe w oul d have been j us t i fi ed i n doi ng s o. N or , as t he C our t expl ai ns , w as t her e anybas i s for li m it ing t heK i r s c h — 4

4 M a j or i t yop i ni on a t14
- 16. evi dent i ar yi m pact of t he B A C evi dence
. I t her efor e agr ee thatt he t r i al j udge s houl d never 4 have g i v e n t h e l i mi t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . But g i v e i t h e d i d , a n d h e neve r
re sc in d e d it. A n d if th e a p p e llan t is rig h t a b o u t its im p o rt, th e n it s e e m s to m e th a t itw o u ld b e a s if th e trial c o u rt had excl uded t he B A C evi dence underR ul e 403— a j ur ychar ge on per

se i nt oxi cat i on w oul d be unw ar r ant ed. E v e ry th in g d e p e n d s, it th e re f o re se e m s to m e , o n w h a t th e lim iti n g in stru c tio n a c tu a lly instruc t ed. Put t i ng as i de fort he mom entw hatt he t r i al j udge a c tu a lly sai d t o t he j ury i n gi vi ng t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on, he m ade c l earon t he r ecor d t hatw hathe m eant t o conveyw as t hatt he j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on of t he B A C evi dence s houl d be l i m i t ed excl us i vel yt o “s how i ng th a t th e in d iv id u a l w h o w a s te ste d h a d in g e ste d a lco h o l at so m e tim e p rio r to th e tes t.” T h is l anguage w oul d pl ai nl ypr ohi bi t t he j ur yfr om cons i der i ng t he B A C evi dence as anyevi dence

w hat s oeverof t he appel l ant ’ s actual B A C , w het her at t he t i m e t he spec i m en w as t aken orat t he t i m e of dr i vi ng. I ns t ead, t he j ur ys houl d r egar d i t l i ke evi dence of t he odorof al cohol on t he br eath; t hat i s , i t i s r el evantt o s how , but i ns uffi ci entbyi t s el f t o pr ove , i nt oxi cat i on under t he per se t heor y . I f t hi s had bee n w hat t he t r i al j udge had actual l y t ol d t he j ur y , t hen I t hi nk t hat t he appel l ant ’ s ar gum ent w oul d be w el l t aken. T her e w oul d be no evi dence of B A C ( or
a t l e a s t o f

BAC qua B A C ) a t all, at any poi nt i n t i m e, and t her efor e no bas i s fors ubm i t t i ng t he per se t heor yof i nt oxi cat i on i n t he j ur ychar ge.K i r s c h — 5

5 Id . a t16 -17
. 6 I n o rder to best ex press his ob viou s i ntent, the tri al j ud ge need n ot have ad ded a m od i f i er at al l , bu t sho uld s i m plyhav e t old the j ury t he sam e thing he tol d the at t orn ey s he w as goi ngt o t e l l the j ury, viz : that the B A C evidence w as “recei ved f or t he l i m i t ed p urp ose o f sho w i ng thatthe individu al w ho w as t est ed h ad ingest ed a l coh ol at som e t i m e prior t o the t est .” I f he w as going t o use “ on l y ” as a m od i f i er atal l , he m ost se nsiblyw ou l d h ave used i tt o ex press t hat the B A C evidence w as “recei ved on l yf or the l i m i t ed p urp ose o f sho w i ng thatthe individu al w ho w as t est ed h ad ingest ed alcoh ol at so m e ti m e p r io r t o the test.” A jur y giv en eith er o f the se in stru ction s w o u ld h av e h ad n o tro u b le u n d e r s t a n d i n g th a ti twa s n o tt o c o n s i d e r th e B AC e v i d e n c e a s e v i d e n c e o f wh a tth e a c c u s e d ’ s B AC actu allyw as at the ti m e o f the test o r at an y o the r tim e, in clu d ing at th e ti m e o f d riv ing . I t w as sim p ly s om e e vi de nc e r e l e va ntt o s how tha tthe appe l l a ntha d “i ng e s t e d a l c ohol a ts om e t i m e pr i ort o the t est ”— period
. I tw ou l d n ot aut ho ri z e, no r cou l d a j ury hav e reasonab l ycon st rued i tt o a utho ri z e, con si derati on of t he B A C evidence qua B A C evidence. B u t w h e n it ca m e to a c tu a llyin stru c tin g th e ju ry , the trial j u d g e d id n o t sa yp re c ise ly

w hathe s ai d he w as goi ng t o s ay . T he C our t hol ds t hat , byaddi ng t he modi fi er“onl y ” ( and par t i cul ar l y , by addi ng i t at t he pl ace i n t he s ent ence w her e he d id), th e trial ju d g e a c tu a lly

ex p r e s s e d a l i mi t a t i o n u p o n t h e BA C e v i d e n c e t h a t was muc h n a r r o wer t han w hat he inten d ed
. I disag ree . In m yv iew , an yw ay y o u p a rs e it , w h at t h e tri al j u d g e told the ju ry
cons t i t ut es t he expr es s i on of a l i m i t at i on t hat w oul d have pr ohi bi t ed t he j ur y fr om us i ng t he B A C evi dence qua B A C evi dence
. T he C our t s ay s t hat t he appel l ant ’ s cons t r uct i on of t he actual l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on has “mi s pl ace d t he m odi fi er ” by m aki ng t he w or d “onl y ” m odi fy t he “w hat ” phra s e ( “i nges t ed

a lco h o l”) ra th e r th a n th e “ w h e n ” p h ra se (“ a t s o m e p o in t b e f o re th e tim e o f

th e tes t”)
. It is

5 im p o rta n t to re c o g n ize th a t th e trial ju d g e d id n o t need an “onl y ” t o m odi fyanyphr as e i n t he i ns t r uct i on i n or dert o get hi s i nt ended m eani ng acr os s . I conce de t hataddi ng ( and movi ng) 6K i r s c h — 6

7 A l i mi t a t i o n u p o n th e j u r y ’ s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e B AC e v i d e n c e t o i t s r e l e v a n c e t o p r o v e s o me f actof con sequ ence occu rri ng som e t i m e aft er t he t est , w hil e no t necessari l y i naccu rat e or m i sl eading, i s tri vial and w ho ll yun necessary . I tw ou l d h ave b een readil yapp arent t o the j ury w i t ho ut an ins tru ction that w ha t everthe r el eva nce of the BA C e vi dence ( w hether qua B A C ev ide n ce, o r m er ely t o s how tha tthe appe l l ant h ad “ i ng e s t e d a l c ohol ” a ts om e po i nti n t i m e ) , i tw a s t o p r ove a f a c tof con sequ ence occu rri ng before the t e s tw a s t a ke n. t he m o d ifi er ch an ges t he pot ent i al m eani ng of t he s ent ence . B ut i t s eems t o m e t hat

r egar dl es s of w het her one adds a modi fi ert o t he s ent ence , and w her everone happe ns t o pl ace i t , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t i l l h a s t h e e f f e c t o f p r o h i b i t i n g t h e j u r yf

r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e BA C evi dence qua B A C evi dence
. H er e i s w hatt he t r i al j udge m eant t o t e l l t h e j u r y: T he B A C evidence w i l l be recei ved by t he C ou rtfor t he li m i t ed p urpose o f s h o wi n g t h a t t h e i n di vi du a l wh o wa s t e s t e d h a d i n g e s t e d a l c o h o l a t s o me poi nt befor e t he t i m e of t he t r i al
. T hat i s t he onl ypurpos e forw hi ch i t w i l l be o f f e re d a n d th e o n ly p u rp o se f o r w h ich y o u sh o u ld re c e iv e it at th is tim e in th is trial. H er e i s w hathe a c tu a lly told the jury(w ith ad d ed em p h asis o n the m o d ifi er):

T he B A C evi dence “w i l l be r ece i ved byt he C our t fort he l i m i t ed purpos e of s how i ng t hat t he i ndi vi dual w ho w as t es t ed had i ngest ed alco h ol o n ly ats om e poi nt befor e t he t i m e of the test
. T hati s t he onl ypurpos e t hat w i ll b e o ff

ere d [s i c] and t he onl ypurpos e forw hi ch y ou s houl d r ece i ve i t at th is tim e in th is tr ia l.” T h is in stru c tio n in f

o rm e d th e ju ry th a t its c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e B A C e v id e n c e w a s lim ited to its ten d e n c yto sh o w th a t th e a p p e llan t h a d in g e ste d a lco h o l, a n d th a t h e h a d in g e ste d a lco h o l, i f atal l , onl yats om e poi nt befor e t he t i m e of the t es t ( as oppos ed t o ats om e ot herp o in t in t i m e, such as af

t er t he t i m e of t he t es t )
. W hat ever el s e m aybe s ai d aboutt hi s i ns t r uct i on, 7K i r s c h — 7

8 I n d eed , ev en p lacin g the m o d if ier b efo re the “ w h at” p h ra se “ ing ested alc o h o l, ” itis sti ll pos s i bl e , i f pe r ha ps notpr e f e r a bl e , t o r e a d i tt o modi f ythe “w he n” ph r a s e . M uc h c oul d d e pe nd upon t he tr i a l j udg e ’ s i nf

l e c t i on w he n g i vi ng s uc h a n i ns t r uc t i on. A j ur ym i g htr e a s onabl yc ons t r ue the i nstructi on t o m ean thati t s con si derati on of t he B A C ev i den ce w ou l d b e l i m i t ed to w hatever t end ency i t ha s t o pr ove t ha t t he a ppe l l a nt i ng e s t e d a l c ohol , a nd t ha the di d s o o n ly at so m e ti m e b ef ore the t est (a s oppo se d t o som e ot hert i m e)
. i t p l a i n l y p r o h i b i t s t h e j u r y f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e B A C e v i d e n c e f o r a n y ot herpurpos e, i ncl udi ng qua B A C ev iden ce . A n yinstruction that ev iden ce h a s b ee n rec eive d fo r a “l i m i t ed” orexcl us i ve ( i
. e. , “onl y ”) purpos e n e c e ss a rily m eans t hat i t has notbeen r ece i ved foranypurpos e notexpr es s l yembra ced w i t hi n t he l anguage of l i m i t at i on. M ovi ng t he modi fi er does not fundament al l y change t he excl us i onar y char act erof t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on— atl eas t not w i t h r es pect t o t he ques t i on of w het her i t w oul d per m i t t he j ur yt o cons i dert he B A C evi dence qua B A C e v id e n c e . H e re is h o w th e in stru c tio n w o u ld

rea d m o v i ng t he w or d “onl y ” s o t hati t m odi fi es t he “w hat ” phr as e ( agai n, w i t h added

em p h asis o n the m o d ifi er):

T he B A C evi dence “w i l l be r ece i ved byt he C our t fort he l i m i t ed purpo se of s how i ng t hatt he i ndi vi dual w ho w as t es t ed had o n ly i nges t ed al cohol ats om e poi nt befor e t he t i m e of t he t es t
. T hat i s t he onl ypurpos e t hat w i l l be off

er ed [s i c] and t he onl ypurpos e forw hi ch y ou sh o u ld rec ei ve i t at th is tim e in th is tr ia l.” T h is in stru c tio n w o u ld h a v e in f o rm e d th e ju ry th a t its c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e B A C e v id e n c e is l i m i t ed t o i t s t endenc yt o s how t hatt he appel l ant had i nges t ed al cohol , and o n ly a lco h o l, t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f

a n y ot hers ubs t ance ( or t hathe had o n ly “i nges t ed” a l cohol , and notdone

s om et hi ng el

se w ith it), a t s o m e p o in t b e f o r e th e tim e o f

th e tes t. W h a tev e r it is th a t th is

8K i r s c h — 8

9 W a rn er v. S tate , 245 S
. W
. 3d 458 , 463 (Tex
. Cri m . A pp. 2008). m ani fes t l yambi guous i ns t r uct i on w o u ld a u th o riz e th e ju ryto c o n sid e r, itc o n tin u e s p lain ly t o p r o h i b i t t h e j u r y f

r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e B A C e v i d e n c e f o r a n y ot herpurpos e, i ncl udi ng qua B A C evi dence
. I n s h o r t , t h e e f

f i c a c yo f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o p r e c l u d e t h e j u r y f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e BA C evi dence qua B A C evi dence does not t ur n— i ndeed, i s not l ogi cal ly d ep en denti n any way
— u p o n t h e p l a c e me n t o f t h e ( g r a t u i t o u s ) mod i f i e r . I f a n y t h i n g , t h e a d d i t i o n of t he

m odi fi er , w her ever i t appea r s i n t he sent ence , actual l y s er ves t o i ncr eas e ( al bei t i n i l l ogi cal and i ncons equ en t i al w ay s ) t he l i m i t at i on pl ace d upon t he j ur y ’ s us e of the B A C evi dence
. It d o e s n o t ex p a n d th e u n iv e rse o f a v a ilab le u se s to w h ic h th e B A C e v id e n c e m a yb e p u t. A nyw ayy ou cuti t , t he j ur yi s pr ohi bi t ed fr om us i ng t he B A C evi dence as anyevi dence of th e a p p e llan t’s B A C , eith e r a t th e tim e o f th e tes t oratt he t i m e he w as dr i vi ng. For t hi s r eas on, I agr ee w i t h t he appel l ant t hat t he evi dence di d not s uppor t s ubm i s s i on of t he per se th e o ryo f

in to x ica tio n in th e D W I ju ryin stru c tio n s. T h e a p p e llan t o b jec ted to t he i ncl us i on of t his t heor yi n t he j ur ychar ge, and s o t he err or cal l s forr ever s al of t he convi ct i on i f t he r ecor d admi t s of “s om e” ha r m . G i ven t hat t her e w as B A C evi dence on t he 9 j u r y ’ s r a d a r , t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t he per se the or yof i nt oxi cat i on i n t he j ur ychar ge mayhave

caus ed t he j ur yt o i gnor e t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on and re l y upon t he B A C evi dence qua BA C evi dence even though i t had bee n pl ai nl yt ol d not t o. A t t he veryl eas t t he i ncl us i on of t heK i r s c h — 9

per se theo ry o f i n tox icati o n in th e j u ry ch arg e m ay h av e e n g en d ere d co n fu sion in the jury

w ith re sp e c t to w h e th e r i t co u ld ig n o re th e lim iti n g in stru c tio n . U n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s, it i s m or e t han j us t conce i vabl e t hat the j ur ygave s hor t s hr i ftt o i t s obl i gat i on t o cons i der

w het hert he appe l l antw as gui l t yundert he onl yt heor y( l os s of nor m al phy s ical o r m ent al facu l t i es) t hat w as p roperl y (pr op erl y , t hat i s, i n l i gh t of t he l i m i t i ng i nst ruct i on t hat w as als o gi ven, how everer r oneous l y o r g r atui t ous l y ) s ubm i t t ed. I w oul d t her efor e r ever s e t he jud g m en t of

the c o u rto f a p p ea ls an d rem an d the c au se f o r a n ew tria l. B e c a u se th e C o u rt d o e s n o t, I res p e c tf

u llyd iss e n t.

Fi l ed: Febr uar y10, 2010 P ub l i sh