Court Opinion

ID: 9953927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-24 07:18:36.477605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:56.784038
License: Public Domain

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting
Opinions filed March 21, 2024.

                                       In The

                        Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-22-00636-CR

                        JUSTIN WILLIAM HARDY, Appellant
                                         V.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                        On Appeal from the 56th District Court
                              Galveston County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 20-CR-3455

                  MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

      Assuming, as the majority concludes, that the trial court erroneously allowed
an expert to answer a single question regarding the BAC of a hypothetical average
person one hour before a blood draw, I would hold that the error is harmless in
light of the entire record.      Because the majority finds the error harmful, I
respectfully dissent.
       The jury heard, without objection, that the average person’s BAC
elimination rate is 0.02 grams of alcohol per hour. The objected-to testimony
applied this elimination rate to determine that the average person’s BAC would
change from 0.15 to 0.17. Thus, the objected-to testimony was largely cumulative
of other evidence—it was an attempt to apply the unobjected-to evidence of an
average elimination rate.

       Moreover, the potential impact of this evidence on the jury was lessened by
counsel’s cross-examination of the witness. She agreed that there was “no way”
for her to calculate appellant’s BAC at the time of driving or to calculate his
elimination rate.

       The State sought a conviction based on the per se definition of intoxication,
and appellant disputed the reliability of the BAC testing at trial. So, the State’s
arguments and the jury’s questions naturally concerned BAC testing. But, none of
the arguments or questions concerned any retrograde extrapolation of appellant’s
BAC.      The arguments and questions did not even mention absorption or
elimination or the average elimination rate.

       The nature of the evidence, arguments, and jury questions in this case do not
contain the indicators of harm found in the cases cited by the majority. See
Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Veliz v. State, 474
S.W.3d 354 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d).

       Considering the entire record, I have a fair assurance that the erroneous
admission of a single hypothetical question and answer—applying the admitted
evidence of a standard elimination rate—did not influence the jury or had but a
slight effect.

       I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                          2
                                      /s/       Ken Wise
                                                Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant. (Poissant, J., majority).
Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                            3