Court Opinion

ID: 9767048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:07:10.039364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:40.135223
License: Public Domain

WHITHAM, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. My disagreement with the majority concerns validation of the intoxilyzer test result. I concur in the majority’s holding that “[ejven if the trial court improperly allowed Scott to testify as to the test result, this error would not be reversible because the result of the test was already established by Velasquez’s unchallenged testimony.” Therefore, both the majority and this dissent agree that a test result indicating a 0.22 blood alcohol content was in evidence through Velasquez’s testimony. In my view, however, the test result cannot be evidence of intoxication unless validated under former TEX. REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6701Z-5, § 3(b). Under the statute the jury cannot consider the evidence of the test result unless it finds that two requirements are met. I emphasize that the present case does not involve predicates or prerequisites that must be shown in order to permit the introduction of an intoxilyzer test result. Instead, the present case involves validation of an intoxilyzer test result properly before the jury. Therefore, I would hold that the trial court erred in failing to give appellant’s requested instruction to the jury. Moreover, applying the holding in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), in order to determine if there has been some harm to the appellant, I conclude that the error was harmful to the appellant. Accordingly, I would sustain appellant’s second ground of error and reverse and remand.
Almanza instructs that whether objection to the charge was made or fundamental error claimed “the actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of *939probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed ' by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza at 171. To this end, I conclude that a discussion of all of appellant’s grounds of error would be both necessary and helpful in order to accomplish this task.
In five grounds of error, appellant challenges his conviction for reasons based on former article 6701/ —5, § 3(b). That statute at the time of appellant’s arrest read:
Chemical analysis of the person’s breath, to be considered valid under the provisions of this section, must be performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety and by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose. The Texas Department of Public Safety is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analysis, and to issue certificates certifying such fact. These certificates shall be subject to termination or revocation, for cause, at the discretion of the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Appellant contends that the trial court reversibly erred: (1) When it admitted, over timely objection, testimony as to the analysis of the breath test administered to the appellant when it had not been proved that the analysis was performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety. (2) In failing to submit appellant’s requested instruction to the jury concerning the requirements of article 6701Z-5, § 3(b). (3) By allowing the State to prove by hearsay that David England possessed a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety over the timely objection that appellant was denied his right to confront the witnesses against him. (4) By permitting the State, over timely objection, to admit into evidence before the jury, a copy of the certificate of David England. (5) By permitting the State, over timely objection, to admit into evidence before the jury, a copy of the recertification of David England.
Appellant voluntarily submitted to the intoxilyzer examination. Appellant argues, however, that the results of the test indicating a 0.22 blood alcohol content should not have been before the jury and in no event without the requested instruction to the jury concerning the requirements of article 6701/ -5, section 3(b). David England performed the test. The test results were before the jury by the testimony of two witnesses. The first witness was arresting officer Velasquez. The second witness who testified as to the test results was sergeant Ira Scott. Scott was England’s supervisor. England did not testify. Appellant’s first, third, fourth and fifth grounds of error are directed at Scott’s testimony.
Scott testified that the steps taken in administering the breath test are:
(1) The initial step of the test would be the observation of the individual for a period of time of not less than 15 minutes, to be sure that there is no additional alcohol present in the mouth cavity when the breath sample is passed through for collection....
(2) The next major phase of the test is actually the purging of the instrument itself with room air, forcing room air through the sample chamber — ... The sample chamber is purged with room air to flush it out and to place the room air in the sample chamber. ... The instrument sets at zero on room air, assuming that to be a zero alcohol concentration.
(3) The operator would then attach a mouthpiece to the inlet tube of the instrument, extending that tube and
(4) asking the person to exhale at a continuous breath sample into the instrument. ... Once the person meets the minimum time of pressure requirements of the exhalation, the instrument measures the infrared energy level being transmitted to two wave lengths through that sample chamber, compares that level to the level of the room air set at zero....
*940(5) The operator would then reattach the pump tube to the breath tube and re-purge the sample chamber with room air....
(6) Subsequent to that, the operator would then attach the pump tube and breath tube to the reference sample unit. The reference sample unit contains the ethyl alcohol distilled water solution maintained at the temperature of the breath. This solution is prepared with an exact alcohol concentration so that room air bubbled through that liquid imparts the exact alcohol concentration in the air sample.
(7) That sample is collected in the instrument, analyzed the same as that person’s breath sample was. So you are testing a known alcohol concentration sample with the instrument....
(8) Simultaneous with the test is a final air blank of the instrument with the purging the sample chamber with room air, analyzing that room air to again check the return of the initial zero setting of that instrument of room air sample. (numerals added).
Thus, the jury learned from Scott a procedure to be followed in administering the test. The State, however, failed to prove that David England followed that procedure. Indeed, the State failed to prove that the procedure described by Scott was “methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety” as that requirement is contained in article 6701/ -5, section 8(b). Furthermore, the State failed to prove what, if anything, that David England did in administering the test.
I agree, however, that we must overrule appellant’s first ground of error in which he contends that the trial court reversibly erred when it admitted, over timely objection, Scott’s testimony as to the analysis of the breath test administered to appellant when it had not been proved that the analysis was performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety. For the purposes of this opinion I assume, but do not decide, that the trial court erred in admitting Scott’s testimony. I conclude, however, that since the test results are in evidence through Velasquez’s testimony, the error does not constitute reversible error. The improper admission of evidence does not constitute reversible error if the same facts are shown by other evidence which is unchallenged. McMahon v. State, 582 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (en banc). Accordingly, I would overrule appellant’s first ground of error. Moreover, for the purposes of this opinion I assume, but do not decide, that the trial court erred: (1) by allowing the State to prove by hearsay that David England possessed a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety over the timely objection that appellant was denied his right to confront the witnesses against him, (2) by permitting the State, over timely objection, to admit into evidence before the jury, a copy of the certificate of David England, and (3) by permitting the State, over timely objection, to admit into evidence before the jury, a copy of the recerti-fication of David England. I conclude that since the test results are in evidence through Velasquez’s testimony, these errors do not constitute reversible errors. Consequently, I agree we must overrule appellant’s third, fourth and fifth grounds of error.
This brings us to the issue raised in appellant’s second ground of error. There can be no doubt that in the present case article 6701/ -5, section 3(b), is applicable to the breath test used. In this regard, the State tells us in its brief that:
Appellant correctly interprets TEX.REV. CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6701/-5, § 3(b) (Vernon Supp.1984), as seting [sic] forth two basic requirements for establishing the validity of breath tests. The requirements are that “the test [sic] must be performed (1) according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety; and, (2) by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose.”
Thus, article 6701/ -5, section 3(b) provides two requirements that must be shown in *941order to validate intoxilyzer breath tests. Moreover, the burden is upon the state to establish that the two requirements are met. Article 6701/-5, section 3(b) tells us as much when it specifies that “to be considered valid ... [the test] must be performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety and by an individual possessed of a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose.” (emphasis added). Therefore, the first requirement to validate the test is that it be performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The second requirement to validate the test is that it be performed by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety.
The trial court instructed the jury as follows:
Chemical analysis of the person’s breath, to be considered valid under the law in this case must be performed by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose. The Texas Department of Public Safety is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analysis, and to issue certificates certifying such fact. These certificates shall be subject to termination to revocation, for cause, at the discretion of the Texas Department of Public Safety.
You are further instructed if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a chemical analysis of the breath of Ewing Sevier Moseley, Jr., was performed, if it was, then before you may consider the result of that analysis, if any, to be valid, you must further find and believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the chemical analysis, if any, was performed by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for that purpose. Unless you shall so find, beyond a reasonable doubt, you will not consider the results of the chemical analysis, if any, for any purpose.
In his second ground of error, appellant complains of the trial court’s failure to submit the following requested instruction:
The statutes of the State of Texas provide that the chemical analysis of a person’s breath, to be valid, must be performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety, and by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose.
You are instructed that if you find and believe from the evidence that a chemical analysis of the breath of Ewing S. Moseley was performed, if it was, then before you may consider that analysis, if any, to be valid, you must further find and believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the chemical analysis, if any, was performed according to methods approved by the [Texas Department of Public Safety], and by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the [Texas Department of Public Safety] for this purpose. Unless you shall so find, beyond a reasonable doubt, you will not consider the chemical analysis, if any, for any purpose.
To my mind, article 6701/ -5, section 3(b) requires validation of test result evidence. For emphasis, I again quote the words of the statute: “to be considered valid ... [the test] must be performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Safety and by an individual possessed of a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose.” (emphasis added). Thus, under the statute the jury cannot consider the evidence of a test result indicating a 0.22 blood alcohol content unless it first finds that the test was performed (1) according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety and (2) by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Since the jury must make these two find*942ings the jury should be charged as to each of the two required findings.
I read the instruction given by the trial court as charging only on the second requirement under the statute, i.e., that it be shown that the test was performed by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety. I read appellant’s requested instruction as correctly charging on the second requirement as well as the first requirement under the statute, i.e., that it be shown that the test was performed according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Consequently, I would hold that the trial court was required to charge on both validation requirements and that its failure to submit appellant’s requested instruction to the jury constitutes error.
Thus, I reach the question whether the trial court’s error was harmless. TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 36.19 (Vernon 1981) reads:
Whenever it appears by the record in any criminal action upon appeal that any requirement of Articles [pertaining to the trial court’s charge] has been disregarded, the judgment shall not be reversed unless the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure the rights of defendant, or unless it appears from the record that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial. All objections to the charge and to the refusal of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial.
Again, I return to Almanza’s teaching that whether objection to the charge was made or fundamental error claimed "the actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza at 171.
In the present case, the prosecutor placed great emphasis upon the test results in his final argument to the jury:
[PROSECUTOR] He takes the test, what does he do? This is his time and this is his chance to walk away innocent. What does he do? He blows a .22. [emphasis added].
In this connection, I am mindful of the State’s reliance upon Rangel v. State, 502 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). In Ran-gel, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction irrespective of the results of the breath test which the court assumed to be inadmissible. The State argues that therefore, the trial court’s error, if any, would be harmless. I disagree. In Rangel, the court was able to reach that conclusion “in light of the rule that in trials before the court the trial judge is presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence.” Rangel, 502 S.W.2d at 153. No such presumption exists in the present case which was tried before a jury. The law, however, provides that when an accused is shown to have “[blown] a .22” the “showing” must be established according to methods approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The trial court failed and refused to so instruct the jury in the present case.
Moreover, I conclude that the present case focused entirely upon the two requirements that must be shown in order to validate intoxilyzer tests under article 6701Z -5, section 3(b). All of appellant’s five grounds of error tell us as much. Grounds one and two pertain to “methods.” Grounds three, four and five pertain to “certificate.” The trial court’s charge eliminated from the controversy one of the two focal points of the case. Assaying the actual degree of harm to appellant as I must under Almanza, I conclude that the trial court’s failure to charge on one of the two requirements of article 6701Z-5, section 3(b), necessary to validate the test goes to the very basis of the present case so that the charge fails to state and apply the law under which the accused is prosecuted. Therefore, I would hold that the trial court’s charge failed to adequately protect the appellant’s rights and that he was injured thereby. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art. 36.19. Accordingly, I conclude *943that the trial court’s error was not harmless error but is reversible error. Consequently, I conclude that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to submit appellant’s requested instruction to the jury concerning the requirements of article 6701Z -5, section 3(b). I would sustain appellant’s second ground of error and reverse and remand.
DEVANY, HOWELL and McCLUNG, JJ., join in the dissent.