Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/resources/dwi/jessica-fraziers-dwi-case-law/xvi-breath-test/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:59:44+00:00

Document:
Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).
Statutory presumption of consent to breath test.
Graham v. State, 710 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).
“Implied consent law” does not place any mandatory duty on the State to administer a chemical test.
Growe v. State, 675 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no pet.).
Motorist’s implied consent is not subject to motorist’s electing to contact an attorney.
Harrell v. State, 725 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).
proper use of reference sample.
existence of periodic supervision over machine and operation by one who understands scientific theory of machine.
proof of results of test by witness or witnesses qualified to translate and interpret such result so as to eliminate hearsay.
Kercho v. State, 948 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d).
The testimony of an lntoxilyzer operator and a technical supervisor to the effect that the instrument was periodically tested to ensure that it was working properly, that a test sample run prior to appellant’s lntoxilyzer tests demonstrated the machine was functioning properly at that time, that the operator had been trained in the operation of the lntoxilyzer machine, and that the technical supervisor, who also testified about the theory of the test, was certified by the Department of Public Safety as a technical supervisor, was sufficient predicate to admit the results of the lntoxilyzer test.
State v. Krager, 810 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1991, pet. ref’d).
When police agency substitutes one approved brand of breath testing equipment for another, it was not necessary that there be a re-application for certification of entire breath testing program.
Ponce v. State, 828 S.W.2d 50 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d).
Reports and test records which reflected that the lntoxilyzer machine used to test appellant’s alcohol concentration was working properly were admissible under Rule 803(6) and are not matters observed by law enforcement personnel.
Maxwell v. State, 253 S.W.3d 309 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008).
Defendant argued that breath test was inadmissible because he was not afforded “his right to contact a physician to obtain a specimen of his blood.” In overruling this point the Court points out that Section (c) of 724.019 provides that a peace officer is not required to transport someone in custody to a facility for testing, and further, Section (d) provides that the “failure or inability to obtain an additional specimen or analysis under this section does not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the analysis of the specimen taken” by the officer originally.
State v. Lyons, 820 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991, no pet.).
Officer has no duty to advise defendant of right to blood test & failure to do so will not affect admissibility of breath test.
Aguirre v. State, 948 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d).
Drapkin v. State, 781 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1989, pet. ref’d).
Statute does not give the suspect the right to a blood test instead of a breath test.
State v. Neel, 808 S.W.2d 575 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1991, no pet.).
A police officer arresting a suspect for driving while intoxicated is entitled to choose between asking the suspect to take a breath test or a blood test, both of which are authorized by statute. The officer need not track the statutory language and ask the defendant to take a breath or blood test.
Parks v. State, 666 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet.).
Miranda warnings need not be given to suspect prior to breath test request.
Garner v. State, 779 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989) pet. ref’d per curiam, 785 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990).
BTR admissible even if after right to counsel is invoked.
Jamail v. State, 787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990).
Mixing request for breath sample with warnings during custodial interrogation such that defendant perceived he had the right to consult an attorney will not negate ability to show refusal at trial.
Forte v. State, 759 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).
De Mangin v. State, 700 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985) aff’d. 787 S.W.2d 956(Tex.Crim.App. 1990).
Turpin v. State, 606 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980).
Breath ampules need not be preserved. Defendant’s inability to obtain blood test within two hours did not render breath test results inadmissible.
Nebes v. State, 743 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.).
Rule that DIC-24 warnings be given in writing does not apply to case where breath test was given. This rule only affects admissibility of breath test “refusals”.
Anderson v. State, No. 2-05-169-CR, 2006 WL 744272 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pdr. dismissed) (not designated for publication).
The fact that the arresting officer gives an oral warning but fails to give a written warning before requesting a breath test does not, by itself, render the results of the test inadmissible. There must be some showing of a causal connection between the failure to give the written warning and the defendant’s refusal to submit to the breath test to render the refusal inadmissible. No such connection was shown in this case and refusal was held admissible.
There was a dispute as to whether the defendant was read the DIC-14 warnings before being asked to give a breath sample. The defendant refused to give a sample and based on the conflict in testimony wanted a charge under Article 38.23 CCP which would allow the jury to disregard the refusal as evidence if they found the warnings were not given. In rejecting that argument, the Court held that defendant had failed to meet the burden of showing a causal connection between any improper warning and the decision whether to submit to a breath test. For that reason, the requested charge was properly denied.
Kely v. State, 413 S.W.3d 164 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2013, no pet.).
Schaum v. State, 833 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no pet.).
Giving only oral and not “written” warnings to defendant does not always mean evidence of refusal will be inadmissible. It will be subject to a “harmless error” analysis. In this case, held to be “harmless” and evidence of refusal was properly admitted.
Lane v. State, 951 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.).
Giving only oral and not written warnings to defendant does not render breath test result inadmissible.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Jauregui, 176 S.W.3d 846, (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.], 2005, rev. denied).
O’Keefe v. State, 981 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Rowland v. State, 983 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d).
Jessup v. State, 935 S.W.2d 508 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d).
No harm has shown where defendant was not given DIC-24 statutory warnings in writing until after refusal.
Nottingham v. State, 908 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no pet.).
Though defendant was not told he was under arrest prior to DIC-24 being read to him, the reading of the DIC-24 and circumstances concerning the reading were sufficient to justify a finding that the arrest requirement was met even though officer testifies that he did not think defendant was under arrest at the time.
Washburn v. State, 235 S.W.3d 346, (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.).
Garcia v. State, No. 10-13-00166-CR, 2014 WL 3724130 (Tex.App.-Waco 2014, no pet).
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Latimer, 939 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.).
Written notice requirement as applied to request for blood sample complied with by officer’s leaving the written copy with the nurse to give the defendant the following day.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Walter, 979 S.W.2d 22 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
McBride v. State, 946 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d).
For officer to request that allegedly intoxicated driver provide specimen of breath or blood, it is not necessary that same officer observe driver, arrest driver, transport driver, and inform driver of consequences of refusal to take test.
Harrison v. State, 766 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989, pet. ref’d).
A peace officer, rather than a civilian breath test operator, must give a defendant the statutory warning on refusing alcohol tests, but the fact that a civilian gives the statutory warning on alcohol tests does not render a defendant’s refusal to take the test automatically inadmissible. Before a trial court is obligated to exclude the evidence, the defendant must show a causal connection between his refusal to give a breath specimen and the fact that a civilian gave the warning.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Benoit, 994 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied).
McClain v. State, 984 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d).
Shirley v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 974 S.W.2d 321 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.).
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Butler, 960 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Martin v. Department of Public Safety, 964 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.).
The following language on the DIC-24: “If you give the specimen and analysis shows that you have an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, your license, permit or privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be suspended…” is not defective for not stating that the concentration must be 0.10 or more “at the time of driving.” It is clear that it was not the intent of the legislature to require a test to show that the defendant was 0.10 at the time of driving for a license suspension to be called for. Thus the statute should not, and does not, contain the wording “at the time of driving” because it does not pertain to whether the arrestee was driving while intoxicated.
Gonzalez v. State, 967 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
Complaint was that the Spanish version of the DIC-24 warning translates to “if you refuse the analysis, that action can be used against you in the future” and that does not exactly track the statutorily language verbatim. The Court held that verbatim tracking is not necessary and the warning language substantially complies with the statutory mandate.
Montoya v. State, No. 02-11-00315-CR, 2012 WL 1868620 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Thomas, 985 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, no pet.).
Defendant who was arrested for DWI held a commercial driver’s license that allowed him to operate both commercial and non-commercial motor vehicles. After his arrest he received the warnings required by Chapter 724 (applying to non-commercial drivers) and refused to give a breath sample. He challenged his subsequent license suspension arguing that because he was not warned of the consequences of his refusal to give a specimen under 724 and Section 522 (regarding commercial licenses), his refusal was not knowing and voluntary. Court of Appeals found that the failure to warn him of both consequences rendered his refusal involuntary.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. McGlaun, 51 S.W.3d 776 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied).
The issue is whether failure to warn the defendant of the consequences of his refusal to give a breath test as to his commercial license means his license should not be suspended. The defendant was not operating a commercial vehicle when he was stopped. The Court held that the Defendant was properly warned and his license should be suspended. Specifically, the Court held that 724.015 does not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial vehicles, so it applies to all vehicles. The fact that different consequences are authorized by more than one applicable statute does not reduce the notice given to the defendant of the consequences provided for each. The Court notes the contrary holding in Thomas and declines to follow that opinion.
See also: Texas Department of Public Safety v. Struve, 79 S. W 3d 796 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, 2002, pet. denied).
Ford v. State, No. 08-11-00307-CR, 2014 WL 823409 (Tex.App.-EI Paso 2014, no pet.).
This case involved a DWI arrest where Defendant was transported to the jail and read the DIC-24 by an officer that the State did not call to testify at trial as he had subsequently been convicted of a felony. They offered the DIC-24 into evidence without calling the officer who read it and Defendant objected on confrontational grounds. On appeal the Court held that the forms were non­testimonial because they contained only the recitation of the statutory warnings and were therefore properly admitted.
Block v. State, No. 03-96-00182-CR, 1997 WL 530767 (Tex.App.-Houston (14th Dist.) 1997, pet.ref’d) (not designated for publication).
DIC-24 is not hearsay as the warnings form is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in those warnings, but rather is offered to show that the warnings were given to the defendant.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Mitchell, No.2-01-938-CV, 2003 WL 1904035 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).
DIC-23 and DIC-24 were properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule 803(8).
State v. Roades, No. 07-11-0077-CR, 2012 WL 6163107 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2012) (not designated for publication).
This case involved a Defendant who was deaf and the issue of whether he voluntarily agreed to take the breath test, or to put it another way, whether his understanding of his options was hampered by his being deaf. Even though the officer testified that prior to the test, he read the Statutory Warning form to the Defendant and placed a copy of it in front of him, the Trial Court granted the motion to suppress finding that it did not believe the Defendant understood he had an option of refusing—take the breath test or refuse to take it. In reversing the Trial Court, the Court of Appeals found that although evidence must show that warnings provided in Section 724.015 were given an accused prior to introduction of evidence of a refusal to submit to a breath test, Section 724.015 does not require proof of those warnings as a predicate to the introduction of “voluntarily” taken breath tests. Here there is simply no record evidence that the Defendant submitted to the breath test because of any physical or psychological pressure brought to bear by law enforcement. Because there was an absence of evidence establishing that any improper conduct by a law enforcement officer “caused” or “coerced” Defendant to submit to a breath test, The Court of Appeals found that the Trial Court abused its discretion in granting the motion to suppress.
State v. Klein, No. 10-08-00344-CR, 2010 WL 3611523 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, reh. overruled pdr ref’d) (not designated for publication).
The defendant’s consent to a breath test was voluntarily given, despite the police officer’s failure to comply with a statutory requirement to orally recite warnings to defendant before obtaining consent for the breath test. In this case the warnings omitted concerned the consequences of refusing or of giving a sample for someone under 21. There was no evidence that the police officer’s failure to read the warnings had any impact on her consent, especially since the defendant was provided with the written warnings.
Hawkins v. State, 865 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref’d).
In holding that it was proper for the officer to ask for a urine specimen, the Court points out that the implied consent statute specifically allows a person to consent to any other type of specimen. Police officer may request urine specimen instead of breath or blood, even though statute specifically recognizes only breath and blood tests.
Harrison v. State, 205 S.W.3d 549 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
Defendant was arrested for DWI and after having the DIC-24 read to her agreed to give a breath sample which showed no alcohol. She was asked to give blood and agreed as well and was transported to hospital for blood draw. After five or six somewhat painful attempts to get blood, she was asked if she would give urine instead, and she agreed so as to avoid continuing to be stuck to obtain a blood sample. The urine sample showed controlled substances, and the defense attacked the urine sample on the basis that the officer did not warn her that she did not have to give a sample and her refusal to give urine would not result in a license suspension. The Court of Appeals found that the consent to give urine was not voluntary as it was given to avoid the further pain of a blood draw. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no requirement that any warnings be read before asking for consent to an urine sample and upheld the trial court’s finding that the consent was voluntary.
Attempt was made to suppress BT given on argument that the Defendant only spoke Korean and the State failed to prove he had knowledge of consequences of his refusal. Warnings were read to Defendant in English and then translated with assistance of Language Line translator and after asking Defendant if he would give a sample he consented. The Court of Appeals found that his consent was voluntary. The Court further rejected Defendant’s argument that the translator’s qualifications were not shown and that the failure to file business record affidavit rendered the translation inadmissible hearsay. Court found the reliability could have been determined by the fact the Defendant gave appropriate answers to questions and that the translator was acting as Defendant’s agent and that his statements were therefore not hearsay.
Trial court granted motion to suppress BT because the old DIC-24 was read which did not include language about State being able to apply for search warrant if he refused. Court of Appeals reversed finding no casual connection was shown between the absence of this language and the consent.
In this case, while still at scene, officer read DIC-24 to Defendant and got his consent to a blood draw. In later contesting the voluntaries of the consent the Defendant argued that he did not believe he was arrested at the time the DIC-24 was read because he had not yet been handcuffed and placed into police car. Defendant also argued that his consent was not voluntary because officer read warning to quickly and the manner in which it was read made it unintelligible. The Court of Appeals rejected those arguments pointing out that based on totality of circumstances the Defendant did consent and on the arrest issued referred to multiple other courts that held that officer’s reading DIC-24 is sufficient proof that Defendant was placed under arrest.
Wagner v. State, 720 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1986, pet. ref’d).
Bookman v. State, No. 10-07-00156-CR, 2008 WL 3112713 (Tex.App.-Waco, 2008, no pet.).
Hardy v. State, No.13-04-055-CR, 2005 WL 1845732 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, 2005) (not designated for publication).
In response to her question, officer informed the defendant “if she would pass the breath test, she would probably be released.” In response to the defendant’s assertion on appeal that this violated Erdman, the Court noted that the “statement to appellant falls far short of the officer’s statements found to be coercive in Erdman.” The Court focused on the fact that the officer did not make any statements about the consequences of appellant’s refusal to take a breath test beyond those listed in Section 724.015 of the Transportation Code. By merely answering appellant’s question, Officer Trujillo did not warn appellant that dire consequences would follow if she refused to take the breath test.
Ness v. State, 152 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) December 2, 2004, pet. ref’d).
Police officer’s statement to defendant at the scene of the arrest that “pending outcome of breath test, defendant would be detained” did not render defendant’s submission to breath test coerced, where officer did not make any statements about consequences of refusal to take test beyond those listed in statute, and he did not warn defendant that dire consequences would follow if he refused to take breath test.
Urquhart v. State, 128 S.W.3d 701 (Tex.App.-EI Paso 2003, pet. ref’d).
Statement by officer to defendant that if he passed the breath test he would be released was alleged to be coercive and should result in suppression of his breath test results. Court found that there was no causal connection between the statement and the decision to give a breath sample.
Sandoval v. State, 17 S.W.3d 792, (Tex.App.-Austin, 2000, pet. ref’d).
Suspect asked what would happen if he “passed the [breath] test”. Officer responded that if suspect failed the test, he would be charged with DWI; but if he passed, the officer would call a relative to come pick up suspect. Suspect took a breath test. Court upheld the test distinguishing these facts from Erdman. It did this by pointing out that Erdman concerned telling a suspect about the extra-statutory consequences of a “refusal” to submit to a breath test while in this case the extra warning dealt with what would happen if he “passed” the test. The Court further pointed out that there was absence of evidence that the extra warning actually coerced the suspect.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Rolfe, 986 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.).
Officer admitted (hypothetically) to telling suspect, when asked, that if she refused to give a sample she would be jailed. Held that consent to breath test was still valid absent; any evidence that this additional warning actually coerced suspect into submitting to a breath test.
Ewerokeh v. State, 835 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref’d).
Officer telling defendant “if he failed test he would be jailed,” found not to be coercive where there was no evidence that defendant relied on this incorrect statement.
Franco v. State, 82 S.W.3d 425 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref’d).
See also: Curl v. State, No. 13-97-491-CR, 1997 WL 33757096 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.).
State v. Amaya, 221 S.W.3d 797 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d).
This involved a claim that the breath test was not voluntary because the warnings were read in English and only the written copy given to the defendant was in Spanish. The trial judge concluded that because the statutory warning was not read in the Spanish language and because we do not know whether the defendant could read the Spanish warning sheet, we have no way of knowing if the defendant understood, or at least substantially understood, what the officer was telling him. The trial judge suppressed the breath test results. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding it was the defendant’s burden to point to some evidence rebutting the presumption arising from the implied consent statute. This finding—that the evidence did not establish whether defendant could or could not read the Spanish DIC-24 form—required the trial court to overrule the defendant’s motion to suppress.
Bergner v. State, No. 2-07-266-CR, 2008 WL 4779592 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
In this appeal the defendant claimed that her breath test result should have been suppressed because of officer’s statement regarding consequences of refusal. The defendant when asked for a sample after the warnings were read said she would give a sample. While officer was out of the room, she called a friend on her cell, and he told her to refuse. When she asked officer what would happen if she refused, he told her that she would go to jail if she did not blow. While conceding that the officer’s statement was of the type that resulted in suppression in Erdman, the Court found that there was no causal connection between the statement and the refusal. Upon cross examination the defendant admitted she already knew that she would go to jail if she refused so the officer’s statement could not have caused the “psychological pressures” that Erdman and the cases that followed were designed to prevent.
Crofton v. State, No. 06-12-00143-CR, 2013 WL 1342543 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2013, pet ref’d).
This case involves the question of whether a Defendant who is told it is a No Refusal weekend, that a warrant will be obtained if he refuses, and who consents thereafter has been coerced into doing so. In denying this the Court points out that the testimony of the State’s witnesses was that consent was given voluntarily, and Defendant was provided with a form informing him of his right to refuse consent, but he did not sign the form, and that he had previously been arrested for DWI. Also, there was no suggestion that he was unintelligent about his rights, that the detention was lengthy, that questioning was repetitive, or that he was subjected to physical punishment. For all these reasons, the consent was held to be voluntary.
Saenz v. State, No. 08-12-00344-CR, 2014 WL 4251011 (Tex.App.-EI Paso 2014, no pet).
The officer read the DIC-24 to the Defendant and asked for a breath test but then engaged in further discussion that the Defendant argues was coercive and makes his consent to give a breath test involuntary. The deviations from the warning included mentioning the consequences of giving a sample versus refusing to give a sample. Specifically the officer mentioned that if the BT was less than .08, the Defendant would get to keep his license and that in those instances the DA’s office typically drops the charges for DWI. The Trial Court granted the motion to suppress and issued lengthy findings of fact and concluded that the numerous extra statutory consequences the officer presented to the Defendant of his refusal to submit to a breath test inherently coerced the Defendant’s decision to submit to a test. The Judge also found the officer’s credibility to be suspect. The State’s position was that the Judge implicitly if not explicitly relied on Erdman to reach that decision. The Court of Appeals agreed and in doing so pointed out that Erdman has been overruled and that the standard is “whether the person’s will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired by physical or psychological pressure to such an extent that his consent cannot be considered voluntary.” The Court found that evidence at the hearing incontrovertibly establishes that the consent was not the product of physical or psychological pressure.
Bice v. State, No. 13-12-00154-CR, 2013 WL 123709 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2013, pdr ref’d).
The Defendant was initially given the correct statutory warnings by the officer and subsequently refused consent to give a sample. Thereafter, the officer advised appellant of the consequences of his refusal; however, in doing so, he misstated the statutory language by saying “up to 180 days” instead of “not less than 180 days”. In other words, the officer understated the consequences of appellant’s refusal. Appellant then consented to provide a breath sample. Although the Defendant changed his mind and agreed to provide a breath sample after the second request, that fact alone— without evidence that the Defendant was pressured physically or psychologically—is insufficient to invalidate consent that was otherwise voluntary.
This very important case overrules Erdman and its progeny. Calling Erdman’s reasoning “confused and flawed,” the Court holds that the rules created by that case fail to consider the circumstances surrounding an officer’s statements when analyzing the issue of voluntariness. So the fact that a law enforcement officer’s answer to a question from a suspect goes outside a mere repetition of the statutory warning will not per se make the Defendant’s consent involuntary. The new rule is that a Court should look at the totality of the circumstances in determining voluntariness. Law enforcement is advised it should not misrepresent the law but neither must it simply repeat statutory warnings when asked a question about the implied consent law. In this case it was determined that the Defendant’s consent was voluntary.
State v. Serano, 894 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no pet.).
Where officer told defendant if he passed the breath test he would be released, and if he failed it he would be arrested while defendant was at scene, said statement was coercive even though two hours passed from time of the statement to time of breath test and even though another officer properly admonished defendant prior to the sample’s being given.
This opinion is implicitly overruled by Fienen v. State, No. PD-10119-12, 2012 WL 5869401 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012).
Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).
Officer’s incorrectly informing defendant of consequences of refusal to give breath sample will not always = evidence that consent was coerced. Question of voluntariness is a case-by-case question of fact. Court concluded under these facts that officer stating to defendant “if he took the test and passed he would be released, but if he refused he would be charged with DWI” constituted coercion.
This opinion is overruled by Fienen v. State, No. PD-10119-12, 2012 WL 5869401 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012).
State v. Sells, 798 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.App.-Austin 1990, no pet.).
Motorist’s consent to breath test was not voluntary due to officer’s statement that defendant “would automatically be charged and incarcerated” if he refused.
Hall v. State, 649 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983).
Mody v. State, 2 S.W.3d 652 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet ref’d).
Jury can consider BTR as evidence of defendant’s guilt.
Gressett v. State, 669 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1983), aff’d, 723 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).
Evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to blood alcohol test after lawful request by police officer is admissible at trial when intoxication is an issue.
Bass v. State, 723 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).
In the context of an arrest for driving while intoxicated, a police inquiry of whether the suspect will take a blood test is not an interrogation within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
See also: Shepherd v. State, 915 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref’d).
Moore v. State, 981 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d).
Evidence of defendant’s refusal to take a breath test was properly admitted, and State had no preadmittance burden to show that defendant was over .10 at the time of driving, why the defendant refused, or that instrument was accurate.
Malkowsky v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 53 S.W.3d 873 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).
This was an appeal of an ALR hearing where defendant claimed that he did not intentionally refuse to give a sample; he was just too intoxicated to comply. The undisputed testimony was that the defendant agreed to give a sample and according to the breath test operator was truly trying to do so but was too intoxicated to comply. Court held that when a person is unable to give a breath sample because of his voluntary intoxication that qualifies as a refusal under 724.032 of the Transportation Code.
Thomas v. State, 990 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.).
Gaddis v. State, 753 S.W.2d 396 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).
Intoxication is a legitimate deduction from defendant’s refusal to take a breath test.
Kennedy v. Texas Department of Public Safety, No.01-08-00735-CV, 2009 WL 1493802 (Tex.App.-Houston [1ˢᵗ Dist.] 2009, no pet.).
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Sanchez, 82 S.W.3d 506 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.).
Repeatedly failing to follow directions in submitting an adequate sample for breath testing constitutes an intentional refusal.
In rejecting the argument that admission of BTR was a violation of the Fourth Amendment the Court pointed out that the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Birchfield that Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant before they insist on a test of a Defendant’s breath, admission of the his refusal to give a sample would not violate Fourth Amendment.
Owen v. State, 905 S.W.2d 434, 437-39 (Tex.App.-Waco 1995, pet. ref’d).
Martin v. State, 724 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987, no pet.).
Late breath test, though not conclusive, is probative when combined with other testimony.
Annis v. State, 578 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).
Breath test taken one hour and 20 minutes after the stop may be sufficient to prove intoxication at the time of stop when coupled with arresting officer’s testimony.
Holloway v. State, 698 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1985, pet. ref’d).
Breath test taken two hours after the stop of the defendant may provide sufficient basis to find defendant intoxicated at the time of the accident when coupled with other evidence in an involuntary manslaughter case.
Dorsche v. State, 514 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).
Breath test taken two hours and 15 minutes after the stop may provide sufficient basis for finding defendant over .10 at time of stop.
Verbois v. State, 909 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no pet.).
Douthitt v. State, 127 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, no pet.).
Results of breath test administered five-and-a-half hours after defendant stopped drinking and four-and-a-half hours after accident which resulted in a charge of Intoxication Manslaughter were relevant to show the defendant did not have normal use of his mental or physical faculties at time of accident because of excess alcohol consumption.
Kennemur v. State, 280 S.W.3d 305 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d).
In this Intoxication Manslaughter case, approximately seven hours after the accident the defendant had a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .098. The Court found that his appearance and the blood alcohol test, even though it was taken many hours after the wreck, tended to make it more probable that he was intoxicated at the time of the collision because there had been evidence that he introduced alcohol into his body prior to the accident.
This was a DWI case where the State alleged driving while intoxicated with an alcohol concentration of at least .15 “at the time of analysis and at or near the time of the commission of the offense” in the charging instrument. The court held that the results of a breath test taken two hours after arrest is not sufficient to determine the BAC at the time of driving without retrograde extrapolation. The Court found that the State invited error by including “at or near the time of the offense” in the information and jury charge, therefore, it will be held to a higher burden of proof. The court did not find that two hours after the incident was “near” the time of driving.
State v. Melendes, 877 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1994, pet. ref’d).
Same operator is not required to observe and administer breath test. Officer who was also a certified operator observed defendant for 15 minutes and then turned defendant over to another operator who administered the test.
State v. Moya, 877 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1994, no pet.).
When test is repeated due to intox error message, an additional 15 minute observation period is not necessary.
State v. Reed, 888 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1994, no pet.).
Subject need not be continuously observed for 15 minutes now that regulations expressly provide that subject need only be in the operator’s continuous presence.
Mclntyre v. State, No. 01-11-00821-CR, 2012 WL 5989434 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 2012, pdr ref’d).
The Defendant argued that the breath test should have been suppressed because the intoxilyzer operator walked out of the testing room, breaking his line of sight with the Defendant for a few minutes. The State contends that although the operator left the room, he was in Defendant’s “presence” because he was in an adjacent room, the door was open, and he was approximately 5 feet away from the Defendant at the time. The Texas Administrative Code provides that “[a breath test] operator shall remain in the presence of the subject at least 15 minutes before the test and should exercise reasonable care to ensure that the subject does not place any substances in the mouth. Direct observation is not necessary to ensure the validity or accuracy of the test result [.]” 37 TEX.ADMIN.CODE § 19.4 (c) (1) (2012). The term “presence” as used in Section 19.4 has not been administratively or legislatively defined; therefore, it must be given its ordinary and plain meaning.
State v. Reed. 888 S.W.2d 117, 122 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1994, no pet.).
The Reed court defined “presence” as an [a]ct, fact, or state of being in a certain place and not elsewhere, or within sight or call, at hand, or in some place that is being thought of. The existence of a person in a particular place at a given time particularly with reference to some act done there and then. Besides actual presence, the Jaw recognizes ”constructive” presence, which latter may be predicated of a person who, though not on the very spot, was near enough to be accounted present by the Jaw, or who was actively cooperating with another who was actually present. Where there is a fact issue raised with respect to the 15-minute waiting period requirement, a Defendant is entitled to an instruction that the jury disregard the test if it believes or has a reasonable doubt as to whether the 15-minute observation requirement was complied with. In reliance on Atkinson, 923 S. W 2d at 25, and as authorized by Article 38. 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court in this case resolved appellant’s motion to suppress the intoxilyzer test results by concluding the evidence at the hearing presented a fact issue. Thus, the jury was given the final decision by the Trial Court including in its charge an instruction that the jury was to disregard the test results on determining they were obtained without complying with the requirement of 15 minutes of continuous presence under Section 19.3(c)(1 ) of title 37 of the Administrative Code. The jury resolved the fact issue against appellant and in favor of the State, and its determination of the issue is supported by the evidence. The law does not require continua/observation, 37 Tex.Admin. Code 19.4(c) (1) (2012), and the jury could have rationally concluded that Albers was in Appellant’s presence, as that term is defined in Reed, for 15 minutes prior to the test. Reed, 888 S. W. 2d at 122.
Trial Court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress BT for failure to comply with 15 minute observation. Even though operator could not specifically recall observing Defendant in holding cell she testified about protocol for observing suspects in holding cell which she believed she followed.
Court of Appeals upheld judges finding that 15 minutes observation requirement met when operator was sure it was followed and said he used stop watch to ensure it was followed in spite of fact time stamps on video and intoxilyzer seemed to rebut that. Courts points out there was no testimony that two clocks were synchronized.
Fact that breath test was not taken until two hours after arrest thereby precluding option of defendant’s exercising right for blood test within two hours of arrest did not render breath test result inadmissible.
State v. Gonzales, 850 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, pet. ref’d).
Where defendant was unable to give sufficient breath sample due to asthma, it was proper for officer to request a blood test and indicate the DIC-24 consequences of refusal would apply to blood test request as well.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Duggin, 962 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.).
Kerr v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 973 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.).
Hunt v. State, 848 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.).
Stevenson v. State, 895 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) on remand, 920 S.W.2d 342 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996, no pet.).
When lntoxilyzer operator did not testify, the Court held the test result became hearsay and remanded case to Court of Appeals to make that determination (controversial decision with 4 dissents). When asked on remand to consider whether breath test results are hearsay, found (logically) that a breath test slip could not be “hearsay” and affirmed the original holding.
Smith v. State, 866 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no pet.).
“Computer-generated data is not hearsay.” Where the computer conducts the test itself, rather than simply storing and organizing data entered by humans, the test result is not subject to a hearsay objection. The proper objection to the admissibility of a computer-generated lntoxilyzer printout slip should be based upon whether the State has shown that the printout is reliable.
Boss v. State, 778 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989, no pet.).
Arresting officer should not have been permitted to testify that, although valid lntoxilyzer test result was not obtained, digital indicator preliminarily registered alcohol content of defendant’s breath at level that was two and one half times the legal level of intoxication.
Breath Test may be offered through new tech superv. This not a violation of confrontation rights. Case cites holding in Settlemire v. State.
Consistent with holdings below and specifically citing Settlemire the Court holds there is no violation of confrontation rights when new technical supervisor testifies who was not in charge of supervision and maintenance at time of arrest.
Beard v. State, No. 10-12-00169-CR, 2013 WL 6136943 (Tex.App.-Waco 2013).
Testimony of new technical supervisor with current responsibility for breath testing apparatus regarding operation of apparatus and use of reference sample solution based upon records generated under his predecessor in such position did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, as supervisor did not testify he prepared or created report that was actually created by his predecessor and did not certify such a report based on machine’s results, and neither tests at issue nor records of results thereof were testimonial.
This case concerns the ability of a new technical supervisor to testify about tests done by the previous technical supervisor. At the time of trial, the previous technical supervisor had retired so the State called the new technical supervisor to prove the proper functioning of the breath testing instrument. Relying on records that were produced by the instrument, the new technical supervisor testified about the working condition of the instrument and the reference. The Defense objected that this violated their confrontation rights under Crawford. The Court of Appeals held that the maintenance records fall under the category of “documents prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance”, which under Melendez-Diaz qualify as non-testimonial records.
Alcaraz v. State, 401 S.W.3d 277 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2013, no pet.).
This case involved a breath test sample that was supported with the testimony of a technical supervisor who was not the technical supervisor at the time the sample was tested. The new technical supervisor testified based on review of records created by the former technical supervisor. The Defense objected under Crawford. In rejecting this attack, the Court held that the admission of a report of breath machine test results did not violate Defendant’s rights under Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution even though report was admitted without testimony of person who had held position of senior forensic analyst at the time test was administered to Defendant. In finding no Confrontation Clause violation, the Court focused on the fact that the Defendant had the opportunity to confront current senior forensic analyst as to her opinion, based on her review of maintenance and inspection records regarding machine’s accuracy and whether machine was working properly on day Defendant’s test was administered, and also to confront officer who administered test to Defendant and signed report. In responding to attack that it was improper for the new technical supervisor to testify about reference samples created by former technical supervisor, the Court held that reference samples created by former technical supervisor may be relied upon for purpose of confirming breath test machine’s accuracy by demonstrating the machine was working at time of administration of Defendant’s test, and were not “testimonial” for purposes of Confrontation Clause, and thus analyst was not required to personally testify at trial.
Henderson v. State, 14 S.W.3d 409 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.).
Technical Supervisor who maintained instrument was not called to testify. The State called his successor instead who did not prepare reference sample or personally maintain instrument when sample was given. Court held that succeeding supervisor could rely on previous supervisor’s records as basis for opinion that breathe test machine was working properly. Also held to be relevant that new supervisor had personal knowledge that old supervisor was certified.
Hartman v. State, 946 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).
Beard v. State, 5 S.W.3d 883 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1999), permanently abated in 108 S.W.3 304(TCA-2003), opinion withdrawn in 2003 WL 21398347 (TA-Eastland, June 18 2003) (unpublished). (Case was permanently abated due to death. The body of opinion can be found at http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/028200.htm.).
the trial court must determine whether the technique was properly applied, in accordance with the department’s rules on the occasion in question.
Testimony regarding the validity of the underlying theory of breath test analysis and technique applying theory was not necessary for test results to be admissible. Legislature recognized the validity of the theory and the technique when it passed the statute authorizing admission of test results in DWI cases.
Kercho v. State, 948 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997 pet. ref’d).
Daricek v. State, 875 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994, pet. ref’d).
Proof needed at trial to show “loss of faculties” and per se offense are not mutually exclusive in that blood test result is probative of loss of faculties and failure of FSTs makes it probable the breath or blood test taken an hour before is reliable.
Johnson v. State, 913 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no pet.).
Failure of officer who arrested defendant for DWI to offer blood or breath test did not deny defendant his due process rights. No evidence that results would have been useful or that officer acted in bad faith (defendant was belligerent).
State v. Schaeffer, 839 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref’d).
During videotape session, appellant changed his mind several times about consenting to breath test. Officers refused to read appellant his rights for third time, or allow him to read them himself. Court found that appellant never affirmatively consented to breath test, and that trial court could have reasonably concluded, based on the record, that appellant did not voluntarily consent or refuse to give a breath test. Judge’s suppression of breath test upheld.
Wyatt v. State, No. 06-12-00150-CR, 2013 WL 3702148 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2013, pdr ref’d).
Defendant contends that a BAC of .10 from a sample taken ninety minutes after driving without extrapolation does not establish that he was over .08 at the time of driving. In rejecting this argument, the Court holds the .10 was probative of his BAC at the time of driving and this was supported by accompanying evidence of impairment that was observed at the time of arrest.
Stewart v. State, 129 S.W.3d 93 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).
In a lower court opinion, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a .16 breath test result was inadmissible, irrelevant, and ”no evidence” in the absence of extrapolation and should therefore not have been admitted into evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded rejecting that argument. It specifically held that the results of a breath test administered eighty minutes after the defendant was pulled over were relevant even without retrograde extrapolation. One argument that the court rejected was that Section 724.064 of the Transportation Code mandates that such results are admissible in DWI cases. The Court also failed to address the issue of whether the probative value of the breath test results was outweighed by the prejudicial effect. The case was remanded to the San Antonio Court of Appeals to address that issue and other points. This case was sent back by the Court of Criminal Appeals so the Court of Appeals could answer the probative vs. prejudicial effect issue. In holding that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, the Court pointed out that both of the samples tested significantly over the legal blood-alcohol limit, the breath test results related directly to the charged offense, presentation of the evidence did not distract the jury away from the charged offense, and the State needed the evidence to prove intoxication due to evidence that defendant took field sobriety tests under poor conditions and she passed four of the field sobriety tests. Note the need for the evidence was not as important to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Mechler.
Garcia v. State, 112 S.W.3d 839 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] August 7, 2003, no pet.).
Beard v. State, 5 S.W.3d 883 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1999), permanently abated in 108 S.W.3 304 (TCA-2003), opinion withdrawn in 2003 WL 21398347 (TA-Eastland, June 18, 2003) (unpublished). [Case was permanently abated due to death. The body of opinion can be found at http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/028200.htm].
In response to the defendant’s argument that without retrograde extrapolation the breath test results themselves were inadmissible as they were irrelevant to show the subject’s BAC at the time of the stop unless the State offers extrapolation testimony. Judge Womack pointed out that the argument was one that “we have never accepted and that other courts have rejected”.
Forte v. State, 707 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).Price v. State, 59 S.W.3d 297 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Thompson, 14 S.W.3d 853 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, no pet.).
Mireles v. State, 9 S.W.3d 128 (Texas 1999).O’Neal v. State, 999 S.W.2d 826 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1999, no pet.).
Martin v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 964 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.).
Owen v. State, 905 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.App.-Waco 1995, pet. ref’d).
Giqliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex.Crim.App 2006).
Probative force of appellant’s breath test results was considerable, since those test results showed that appellant had consumed in the hours preceding the breath test, a substantial amount of alcohol—enough alcohol to raise his breath alcohol concentration to 0.09. This evidence tended to make more probable appellant’s intoxication at the time he was driving, under either statutory definition of intoxication.
The State’s need for the breath test results was considerable, since the State’s videotape which showed appellant as quite lucid, tended to contradict to some extent Officer Heim’s testimony concerning appellant’s appearance and behavior.
The breath test results did not have a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis. The test results were not inflammatory in any sense and they “relate[d] directly to the charged offense”.
The breath test results did not have a tendency to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues because the results related directly to the charged offense.
The breath test results did not have any tendency to be given undue weight by the jury. Since the State’s expert testified that the breath test results could not be used to determine what appellant’s breath alcohol concentration was at the time he was stopped, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the jury was equipped to evaluate the probative force of the breath test results.
The Court of Criminal Appeals did not say that breath test results will always be admissible in the face of a Rule 403 challenge. It suggested that if a jury was not given adequate information with which to evaluate the probative force of breath test results, it might be reasonable to conclude that the admission of such evidence would pose a danger of misleading the jury. It further suggested that if the test was administered to an accused several hours after he was stopped and the results were at or below the legal limit, it might be concluded that the probative force of the test results was too weak to warrant admission in the face of a Rule 403 challenge.
State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).
This is a post Stewart case where the Court held that the prejudice of admitting evidence of breath testing machine results taken one and a half hours after defendant’s arrest did not outweigh its probative value, and thus results were admissible. The Court so held even though it mentioned the State had other evidence of intoxication and may not have needed the results to convict in this case.
State v. Franco, 180 S.W.3d 219 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, pet. ref’d).
What is the probative value of the evidence? The Court found the probative value of the results of Franco’s blood tests are significantly diminished by the two and four hour delay in obtaining the samples and by the fact that both results are below the legal limit, and coupled with the fact that there was no extrapolation evidence (this was held properly excluded in this same opinion). This factor was found to go in the defendant’s favor.
The potential to impress the jury in some irrational yet indelible way: In its examination of this issue, the Court stated it could not fathom a reason for the State to introduce test results showing blood alcohol concentration below the legal limit other than to invite the jury “to conduct its own crude retrograde extrapolation”, but it admitted that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has rejected this argument (in Stewart which, until this was handed down, was the worst opinion to come out of San Antonio Court of Appeals). It then conceded the results showed the defendant consumed alcohol and found that part of the test favored admission.
The time needed to develop the evidence: This factor also was found to favor admission.
The proponent’s need for the evidence: The Court then finds the State did not have a great need for this evidence as other evidence showed that officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath, defendant was swaying and told officer he drank a beer; the results of the field sobriety tests showed signs of impairment; a videotape at the scene, on which defendant states he had been drinking beer before the accident; and possibly the results of the portable breath test taken at the scene an hour after the accident (which has never been found to be admissible in court!?) all led the Court to find the State does not have a great need for the blood test results. This factor thus weighs in favor of exclusion. The Court held that blood test results were properly excluded.
Court held retrograde extrapolation evidence was improperly admitted based upon the following: There was only one test, conducted three-and-a-half hours after stop, did not know enough characteristic of Defendant such as drinking pattern, time of first and last drinks, number of drinks or weight. Analyst said she could perform retrograde extrapolation without time of last drink so long as she had the time of stop and time of draw. The court held that these and others answers showed analyst did not understand subtleties of science and risks of extrapolation and that answers were incorrect according to Mata.
Retrograde Extrapolation testimony improperly admitted: Witness did not know when Defendant stopped drinking, could not say if Defendant was absorbing or in elimination phase, did not know Defendant’s weight, how much alcohol he consumed, when he had his last drink, or whether he had eaten earlier that day.
Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).
This case has sent broad ripples through the state and there has been a great deal of discussion and disagreement over its meaning and impact on the admissibility of extrapolation evidence. I am less inclined than others to believe that this opinion has broad and terrible implications. What follows is a brief review of what I interpret this holding to mean. The case involves the much touted State’s expert George McDougall who very much impressed the Court of Appeals in the Hartman case cited above and Court of Appeals opinion of this case. The issue before the Court of Criminal Appeals is whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that McDougall’s retrograde extrapolation was reliable. The Court held that in this case it was not, and that the testimony should have been excluded. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is careful to point out that it is not saying extrapolation is necessary for the State to prove a defendant guilty in a DWI or to get the results of a breath or blood test before the jury. It also explicitly finds that “retrograde extrapolation” can be reliable in a given case. It also sets what I believe to be a minimum threshold for the type of factors an expert must be aware of before he can give such an opinion. Those facts are: the length of time over which the defendant was drinking, the time of his last drink, and the defendant’s weight. Without knowing these factors, I don’t believe it would be proper for an expert for either side to give an opinion on what the defendant’s alcohol level would have been at the time he/she was driving.
Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).
This was a DWI case where extrapolation evidence was allowed in over objection. On appeal, the State conceded that the extrapolation evidence should not have been admitted. The Court of Appeals found the error to be harmful and reversed. One argument made by the State on appeal was that the Texas Legislature effectively mandated that jurors engage in retrograde extrapolation. They did not agree with that argument pointing out the State did have to show breath results are relevant. The Court upheld the Court of Appeals reversal as it could not say that the erroneous admission of retrograde extrapolation testimony did not influence the jury. It did not address the issue of whether retrograde extrapolation is needed to prove intoxication under the per se definition.
Castor v. State, No. 13-10-00543-CR, 2011 WL 5999602 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2011, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
In holding retrograde extrapolation was improperly admitted, the Court focused on its belief that the State’s expert demonstrated an inability to apply and explain it with clarity and did not show an appreciation of the subtleties inherent in it. He knew no personal characteristics of the driver or circumstances of his alcohol consumption. He also offered no testimony on the rate at which alcohol is eliminated from the body. The Court found the error to be harmless. The lesson here is to be thorough in your direct of your expert.
The Defendant objected to the admission of blood test results showing the presence of Alprazolam and marijuana in blood test without retrograde extrapolation. Pointing to other cases that have held blood test results were relevant without extrapolation the Court rejected that argument.
Manning v. State, 114 S.W.3d 922 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).
This was a manslaughter charge where the State alleged that one of the reckless acts was that the defendant consumed a controlled substance. The only evidence of this was the presence in the blood sample of .15 mg. of a cocaine metabolite known as benzoylecgonine. The testimony at trial was this result at best showed that some time before the accident, cocaine was ingested. The Court of Appeals felt the evidence was not compelling and should not have been admitted because the State did not extrapolate back to the time of the accident. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals and agreed with the State that the lower Court was confusing sufficiency with admissibility. The evidence was still relevant to show cocaine had been consumed by the defendant.
Sutton v. State, No. 05-10-00827-CR, 2011 WL 3528259 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, pdr ref’d).
Alf the facts in the chemist’s hypothetical here were tied to characteristics of defendant that were introduced into evidence during trial or known to the chemist: appellant’s weight, the timing of the stop, the timing and results of his breathalyzer test, the timing of his last drink, and the type of alcohol consumed. The breath tests were administered approximately an hour and a half after the offense and the test indicates the tests were performed within three minutes of each other. The record shows no inconsistencies or errors in the chemist’s testimony concerning the retrograde extrapolation and said testimony was properly admitted.
Kennedy v. State, 264 S.W.3d 372 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.], 2008, pet. ref’d).
The only information known to experts in this case on which to base their extrapolation concerning the defendant’s BAC at the time of the collision was his height and weight, the type and approximate number of drinks, the time of the crash and the time of the blood test which was about two hours and 15 minutes after the crash. The expert was also told to rely on certain assumptions such as the time period over which he drank, when and what he last ate, the size of the beer consumed, and the fact that defendant was a “social drinker”. The Court held it was not error to admit the extrapolation evidence.
Fulenwider v. State, 176 S.W.3d 290 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d).
The retrograde extrapolation expert had sufficient knowledge of defendant’s characteristics and behaviors to render reliable extrapolation of defendant’s alcohol concentration at time of alleged offense of DWI. The expert testified that she did not know when defendant had her last drink, but did know the time of offense, time that breath tests were conducted, and defendant’s gender, weight, height, and last meal, and expert had basis on which to determine time that defendant had her last drink, given eyewitness testimony as to defendant’s drinking prior to offense.
Peden v. State, No. 01-03-00522-CR, 2004 WL 2538274 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d).
Retrograde extrapolation was properly admitted in this case based upon the expert’s knowing the following details. There was a single test result an hour and 44 minutes after the stop. She knew defendant’s weight and what he ate over a four hour period and that he did not have any alcohol after 10:30 which was 35 minutes before the stop and an hour and 19 minutes alcohol content had peaked at the time of testing; his alcohol concentration would have been over 0.08 at the time he drove his car.
Bhakta v. State, 124 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.], 2003, pet. ref’d).
The Court held that the State’s expert was qualified to testify about retrograde extrapolation and that he knew sufficient facts about the defendant to offer an opinion. In so holding, the Court stressed that not every single personal fact about the defendant must be known to an expert giving retrograde extrapolation testimony in a driving while intoxicated prosecution in order to produce an extrapolation with the appropriate level of reliability. In this case, the facts known to the State’s expert were the time of his last drink, his weight and height, the time of the breath tests, the results of the breath tests, his last meal prior to being stopped, and the time of that meal.
Morales v. State, No. 04-11-00363-CR, 2012 WL 1648366 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012, no pet.).
In this case there was a 5–12 hour delay in drawing blood and the defense objected to its admission under Rule 403. The State expert admitted he could not and he did not attempt to extrapolate. The Court of Appeals applied balancing test and found probative outweighed prejudice under these facts.
X. OPERATOR NEED NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE BEHIND THE INSTRUMENT!
Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
In response to the question of whether the breath test operator needed to understand the science behind the instrument, the Court said: The fact of certification is sufficient to meet the Kelly criteria with respect to the competence of the breath test operator. That the opponent of the evidence can demonstrate that the operator has not retained all of the knowledge that was required of him for certification is a circumstance that goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the breath test results. As long as the operator knows the protocol involved in administering the test and can testify that he followed it on the occasion in question, he need not also demonstrate any personal familiarity with the underlying science and technology.
State v. Garza, No. 04-02-00626-CR, 2005 WL 2138082 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
Trial court held that evidence of lntoxilyzer test results was inadmissible without testimony that the lntoxilyzer’s reference sample was operating at a “known” temperature at the time the test was administered. The technical supervisor testified it was reasonable to infer the temperature was in range as he had checked it before and after the test. The Court held that it was not abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the results. It distinguished this case from Gamez on the basis that the reference was checked the day before and the day after in Gamez, and in this case it was the week before and the week after.
Scillitani v. State, 343 S.W.3d 914 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 2011).
In administering the defendant’s intoxilyzer test, the operator, believing the machine checked the temperature before administering the test to appellant, did not check the temperature of a reference sample on the intoxilyzer. He did conduct a diagnostic test on the intoxilyzer, which did not identify or indicate any invalid conditions; then appellant gave two breath samples, taken three minutes apart. The intoxilyzer did not indicate any malfunction. At first in an earlier hearing, the technical supervisor said regulations were not followed but later testified that the current regulations no longer require that the reference sample be taken at a known temperature. Court held test properly admitted.
Gamez v. State, No. 04-02-00087-CR, 2003 WL 145554 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 2003, no pet) (not designated for publication).
The Defense proved through the State’s expert that the “Fox study” was accurate in its findings that an elevated alcohol concentration can result if the subject is running a high fever (the State’s expert said it would have to be four to five degrees elevated). On the basis of that answer, the defendant tried to get the Court to suppress the breath test because his temperature was not taken by the operator prior to his sample being taken. The Court rejects that argument finding there is no such requirement in the breath testing regulations. It also found that the operator’s failure to check the reference sample temperature was not a basis for exclusion as the technical supervisor had checked it the day before and the day after the test, and both times it was at the correct temperature.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.