Court Opinion

ID: 9642876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:11:23.906289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:53.785334
License: Public Domain

LÓPEZ, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated below, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the trial court did not err in overruling Gigliobianco’s Rule 403 objection to the admissibility of the breath test results. The majority concludes that the first three nonexclusive factors weigh in favor of admissibility. The primary stumbling block with regard to the second and third factors is language in Mechler1 which appears to dictate that these factors will always favor admissibility, truncating the need for any additional analysis regardless of the facts presented. Although the majority notes that the test results in the instant case are distinguishable from the results in cases previously decided by this court, the majority concludes that the first factor weighs in favor of admissibility because the results were “nonetheless probative” of whether Gigliobianco consumed alcohol and was impaired as a result. The majority concedes that the fourth factor weighs against admissibility.
Although Mechler may dictate that the second and third factors always weigh in favor of admissibility, I agree with Judge Cochran that the four expressly defined factors should not be given equal weight so that in every case the trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion because Mechler dictates that two of the four factors favor admissibility. In addition, I believe the trial court cannot ignore the impact the admission of the intoxilyzer evidence has on the presentation of other evidence. I believe this impact can and should be considered by the trial court as an additional factor in the balancing test. Most importantly, I believe this case presents a cogent argument for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the analysis set forth in Judge Cochran’s concurring opinion in Mechler and to provide further guidance to the trial and appellate courts regarding the application of the Rule 403 balancing test in this context.

*146
Probative Value

“The first factor looks to the evidence’s probativeness or how compellingly the evidence serves to make a fact of consequence more or less probable.” Id. “[T]he relative probative value of the test depends primarily upon two variables: 1) the degree to which the test result exceeds the legal limit of 0.08%; and 2) the amount of time elapsed between driving and the taking of the test.” Id. at 449 (Cochran, J., concurring). As Judge Cochran explains:
The higher the test result and the shorter the time between driving and testing, the more likely the logical inference is that the defendant had a BAC level at or above 0.08% at the time of driving. The stronger the inference of a BAC of 0.08% or greater at the time of driving, the less significant is the necessity for expert retrograde extrapolation testimony. Conversely, the weaker the inference of guilt, the more vital is the necessity for evidence that relates an accused’s BAC test result back to the time of driving. When a test is obtained long after the arrest and the result is at or below the legal limit, the logical inference that the person had a 0.08% BAC at the time of driving may be so tenuous that a trial judge appropriately exercises his discretion by excluding that specific test result under Rule 403 absent expert testimony that extrapolates, the test result back to the time of driving.

Id.

The reason the probative value of the test result is so dependent on the actual test result and the elapsed time is demonstrated by the scientific literature cited by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902, 910-13 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). The court summarized one of those articles as stating, “[I]n most DWT cases, the person is arrested shortly after his last drink. His stomach has not yet absorbed all the alcohol, and his BAC will continue to rise for some time after arrest, resulting in a tested BAC which is higher than what it was at the time of the driving.” Id. at 913. Another article is quoted as stating, “[T]he potential rate of error increased as time went on. Indeed, ‘this variability was particularly large’ when extrapolation back one hour or more was attempted.’” Id. at 912. Another article stated, “[T]he major possible source of error ... [is when] continuing absorption is ignored.” Id. at 912. A final article noted, “[I]t should be remembered that the process of alcohol absorption is highly variable. The limitations and pitfalls associated with retrograde extrapolations are often not appreciated by laymen and the courts.” Id. at 911.
In this case, Gigliobianco was stopped at 9:46 p.m. The tests were administered at 11:10 p.m. and 11:12 p.m. The test results were 0.090% and 0.092%. As the majority notes, the facts in this case are distinguishable from cases previously decided by this court. See, e.g., Trillo v. State, 165 S.W.3d 763, 769 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (one hour; 0.133 and 0.130); Stewart v. State, 162 S.W.3d 269, 274 (Tex.App.San Antonio 2005, pet. stricken) (eighty minutes; 0.160 and 0.154); Kelly v. State, No. 04-04-00456-CR, 2005 WL 839505, at *2 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Apr. 13, 2005, no pet.) (three hours; 0.153 and 0.154) (not designated for publication); Martinez v. State, 155 S.W.3d 491, 494 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (sixty-two minutes; 0.273 and 0.277); but see Adams v. State, 156 S.W.3d 152, 155-56 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2005, no. pet.) (fifty-four minutes; 0.090 and 0.094). Given that almost one and one half hours elapsed between the *147time of driving and the time of the test,2 the test results of 0.090% and 0.092% do not compellingly support an inference that Gigliobianco had a 0.08% BAC at the time of driving. Although the majority concludes that the results were “nonetheless probative,” I believe the probative weight of the evidence is critical when an appellate court is reviewing the trial court’s decision to admit evidence under a Rule 408 balancing test.

Additional Factor

In Mechler, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that “a proper Rule 408 analysis includes, but is not limited to,” the four factors analyzed above. 153 S.W.3d at 440 (emphasis added). Another factor that I believe must be considered in the Rule 403 balancing is the effect the introduction of the test results will have on the remainder of the case. In this case, the admission of the test results allowed the State to present the testimony of George McDougall. Absent the introduction of the test results, none of McDougall’s testimony would have been relevant because it all related to the intoxilyzer test machine and the “effect” of the test results. The only other witness presented by the State was the arresting officer.
George McDougall testified that he is responsible for maintaining the breath test instruments in Bexar County and is the supervisor of the certified breath test operators in Bexar County. McDougall stated that testing “over many decades with thousands of individuals” has established “that every person that has been tested has been impaired in their mental and physical faculties at 0.08.” McDougall explained the scientific principles and theories underlying the Intoxilyzer model number 5000 and the manner in which the Intoxilyzer instrument applies those theories. McDougall stated that the machine used to test Gigliobianco was certified, and McDougall described the maintenance performed on the machine. McDougall stated that maintenance checks performed on the machine the morning before Gigliobianco was tested and three days later revealed that the machine was operating correctly. Based on these checks, McDougall opined that the machine was operating correctly when Gigliobianco was tested. McDougall stated that the test report revealed that the test met the criteria of the regulations for an adequate breath test. McDougall testified regarding the preparation and use of reference samples and stated that the reference sample used diming Gigliobian-co’s test was within the tolerance of the predicted reference sample value. McDougall explained the steps the operator of an Intoxilyzer machine must follow before taking the breath test.
McDougall testified that Gigliobianco’s first sample was delivered at 11:10 p.m., and the other at 11:12 p.m. The test results were 0.090 and 0.092, respectively. McDougall stated that Gigliobianco’s results were greater than 0.080 and a person with an alcohol concentration of 0.080 would have lost the normal use of his mental and/or physical faculties. McDou-gall admitted that he would not be able to speak to what Gigliobianco’s breath test results would have been if the test was administered at the scene. McDougall admitted that a test result above the legal limit at the time of the test does not mean that the person’s alcohol concentration was above the legal limit at the time the person was driving. McDougall agreed that the person’s alcohol concentration could be *148lower at the time the person was driving than at the time the person was tested. McDougall agreed that the processes of absorption and elimination would potentially cause differences between alcohol concentrations at the time of driving and at the time of testing. McDougall agreed that these processes would be affected by the person, the consumption of food, the concentration of alcohol and the speed of consumption. McDougall stated that from the test results, he could not determine if Gigliobianeo was absorbing or eliminating alcohol at the time of the test. McDougall stated that he could not tell the jury what Gigliobianco’s alcohol concentration would have been at the time he was driving.
Although McDougall informed the jury that he could not “extrapolate” the test results back to the time Gigliobianeo was driving, the admission of the test results allowed McDougall to’ state his “expert” opinion that testing “over many decades with thousands of individuals” has established “that every person that has been tested has been impaired in their mental and physical faculties at 0.08.”

Balancing

With regard to the four defined factors that a trial court is to consider in a Rule 408 analysis, Judge Cochran’s concurring opinion in Mechler indicates that the factors should not be given equal weight by the trial court. In Mechler, Judge Cochran stated, “In balancing the probative value of an intoxilyzer test result against its potential for creating unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues, the two most significant items in that balance are: 1) the actual test result itself and how much it exceeded the legal limit of 0.08% BAC; and 2) the time interval between the defendant’s driving and the taking of the test.” 158 S.W.3d at 444 (Cochran, J., concurring). Later in her opinion, Judge Cochran emphasized, “The single most important factor in the context of admitting breath test results in the absence of extrapolation testimony is the inherent probative value of the test result.” Id. at 449.
' In this case, the test results were close to the legal limit and were obtained almost an hour and a half after Gigliobianeo was stopped. Accordingly, the test results coupled with the time interval call into question “the inherent probative value of the test result.” Id. Because this factor is entitled to added weight as the “single most significant factor” in the Rule 403 balancing and given the lack of the need for the evidence and the effect the admission of the test results had on the remainder of the case, I would conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the intoxilyzer test results.

Harm Analysis

Although I would conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the test results, the erroneous admission of evidence must be disregarded if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has a fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect. Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). The test results were the only evidence that supported a finding of guilt under the per se definition of intoxication. Absent those results, the per se definition of intoxication could not have been included in the jury charge. See Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d at 761-64 (holding erroneous admission of retrograde extrapolation testimony in support of per se definition of intoxicátion 'not harmless despite submission of alternative definition of intoxication). Furthermore, because the test results were admitted, McDougall was permitted to testify regarding his “expert opinion” that testing “over many decades *149•with thousands of individuals” has established “that every person that has been tested has been impaired in their mental and physical faculties at 0.08.” See Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (listing whether testimony was elicited from an expert as an important factor in the harm analysis). Having considered the record as a whole, I would not have a fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect.
Because I believe the trial court committed reversible error in overruling Giglio-bianco’s Rule 403 objection to the admissibility of the breath test results, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial. Because the majority holds to the contrary, I respectfully dissent.

. State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

. See Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d at 912 (quoting scientific literature noting that potential rate of error in extrapolation is particularly large when extrapolation back one hour or more is attempted).