Skip to main content
Tag

Jury Instructions

May 03
Love9
Operation Motor Vehicle Texas DWI

Operating a Motor Vehicle in the DWI Context

By DWI

What does it mean to “Operate” a vehicle under Texas’ DWI laws?

Operation Motor Vehicle Texas DWIThe simple answer is that it means whatever the jury (not the judge) says it means.

Under Section 49.04(a) of the Texas Penal Code, a person commits the offense of DWI when the person “is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” Emphasis added.  The Penal Code, however, does not define the term “operating.” When words are left undefined by statute, the Texas Government Code Section 311.011 tells us that those words are to be “construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage,” unless the word or phrase has some “technical or particular meaning,” in which case, the word or phrase “shall be construed accordingly.” What about the word “operating?” Is it common or technical?

In the trial of Kirsch v. State out in the Longview area, the defendant was charged with DWI after the police found him drunk while standing over his motorcycle trying to kick-start it on a public road.  As you might guess, there was a dispute over whether he was “operating” his vehicle while intoxicated.  Over defense objection, the trial court included the prosecutor’s requested definition of “operate” in the jury instructions:

to exert personal effort to cause the vehicle to function.

To the prosecutor’s credit, the definition was taken from an appellate case (although not one dealing with jury instructions).  Now, under this definition it is pretty clear that by trying to kick-start the motorcycle, the defendant was indeed operating a motor vehicle.  But if the term “operate” had been left undefined for the jury, then the defense could have certainly argued under the rules of grammar and common usage that the defendant was not “operating” his vehicle, because it was not running (or whatever other arguments an able defense counsel might make).  Armed with a black and white definition of “operate,” the jury convicted the defendant of DWI.

The 6th District Court of Appeals (Texarkana) affirmed the conviction.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. For a unanimous court, Judge Alcala wrote:

Our cases have consistently held that “operate” is a common term that has not acquired a technical meaning and may be interpreted according to its common usage… Although an appellate court may articulate a definition of a statutorily undefined, common term in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence on appellate review, a trial court’s inclusion of that definition in a jury charge may constitute an improper comment on the weight of the evidence.

The opinion goes on to note that by instructing the jurors on the definition of the term “operate,” the trial court “impermissibly guided their understanding of the term.” “The jury should have been free,” the CCA held, “to assign that term ‘any meaning which is acceptable in common parlance.’” The CCA reversed the case and remanded it back to the COA for a harm analysis.

There you have it. The meaning of the term “operating” in the Texas DWI statute means…whatever the jury thinks it means.

Fort Worth DWI Defense Attorneys | Keller DWI | Grapevine DWI

Contact the top-rated Tarrant County DWI attorneys of Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC for a FREE consultation of your DWI case. We will help you determine whether the State could prove that you were operating a motor vehicle under Texas DWI law.  Call (817) 993-9249 or send us a contact email from our website. Our team of DWI attorneys will get to work defending your rights and protecting your future.

Jan 04
Love0
Judge Writing On Paper At Desk

Unanimity Instruction Required and Not Given, But No harm, Says CCA

By Jury Trial

Trial Court Failed to Give Unanimity Instruction to the Jury

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion regarding a unanimity jury instruction in an aggravated sexual assault case. The issue before the Court was whether the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that it must be unanimous in deciding how the sexual contact occurred when there were multiple allegations. The Court of Criminal Appeals found the jury instruction to be erroneous but concluded no harm occurred.

French v. State, (Court of Criminal Appeals 2018).

The Facts—The Defendant Was Convicted for Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child

The defendant was originally indicted on a single count of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The indictment alleged that the defendant caused the penetration of the child’s anus by the defendant’s sexual organ. Before trial though, the indictment was amended to add “contact with” and “penetration of” the sexual organ of the child by the defendant’s sexual organ. As a result, the indictment presented four options for a conviction: (1) the defendant contacted the child’s anus with his sexual organ; (2) the defendant penetrated the child’s anus with his sexual organ; (3) the defendant contacted the child’s sexual organ with his sexual organ; and/or (4) the defendant penetrated the child’s sexual organ with his sexual organ.

At trial, the jury instructions authorized the jury to convict the defendant on any one of the four theories. In addition, the trial court explicitly instructed the jury that they need not all agree on the manner in which the sexual assault was committed. This instruction essentially authorized the jury to convict the defendant without agreeing as to which orifice he had “contacted or penetrated”—even though there was little to no evidence presented that defendant ever contacted or penetrated the child’s sexual organ. This prompted the defendant to object and ask the court for a unanimity instruction regarding the manner in which the sexual assault was committed. However, the court overruled the objection and the defendant was subsequently convicted.

The Court of Appeals Reversed the Defendant’s Conviction—Holding the Trial Court Erred in Failing to Submit a Proper Instruction Which Caused “Some Harm”

On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury charge failed to follow the juror unanimity requirement because it did not require the jury to agree as to which orifice he contacted and/or penetrated. For double jeopardy purposes, he argued the theories were considered distinct and separate offenses, each of which demanded juror unanimity for a conviction. The court of appeals agreed, and it held that the trial court erred by failing to submit proper instructions. In light of this error, the court of appeals determined that the erroneous jury charge was sufficient to invoke the “some harm” standard under Almanza, which required a reversal.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Reversed the Court of Appeals’ Judgment—Finding No Actual Harm Occurred

On petition for discretionary review, the State did not contest the erroneous jury charge. Rather, it argued that any error in the jury charge as to the unanimity requirement did not result in harm to the defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

In analyzing whether there was “some harm,” the Court of Criminal Appeals considered the trial court’s error with respect to the four factors set out in Almanza: “(1) the entire jury charge, (2) the state of the evidence, (3) the jury arguments, and (4) any other relevant information as revealed by the record as a whole.”
The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that in concluding that “some harm” occurred the court of appeals only relied upon the second Almanza factor—the state of the evidence. That court identified there was “some evidence in the record” for the jury to potentially conclude that the defendant penetrated both the child’s anus and sexual organ with his own sexual organ. And, since there was “some evidence” it believed that the jury could have regarded itself as authorized to convict different ways without reaching any agreement on a specific theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, even considering the above reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined there was no harm suffered when taking into consideration all four of the Almanza factors. The Court explained that “the risk that a rational juror would have convicted the defendant on the basis that he contacted and/or penetrated the child’s sexual organ with his own—and not also on the basis that he contacted and/or penetrated the child’s anus—is so ‘highly unlikely’ as to be ‘almost infinitesimal.’” Not only was there overwhelming evidence at trial that suggested anal contact and penetration occurred, there was no encouragement for a specific finding, and the defendant’s only defense was that it never happened. All of this supports the Court’s conclusion that the harm was merely hypothetical and not actual. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the case even in light of the error.

Sep 20
Love1
DWI Jury Instruction Alcohol Burnett

Error to Instruct DWI Jury on Drug Intoxication When Not Supported By Evidence

By DWI

Is it Error to Provide a Jury with Instructions When the Statutory Language is not Supported by the Evidence?

DWI Jury Instruction Alcohol BurnettThe Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down a case regarding the State’s ability to use the full statutory definition of “intoxicated” in a jury charge for DWI cases. The issue faced by the court was whether the trial court erred in providing the jury with portions of the statutory language that were not supported by evidence presented at trial.

Burnett v. State, Court of Criminal Appeals (2017)

The Facts—What Happened?

Burnett was arrested and charged with DWI after rear-ending a vehicle occupied by Bussey and Chappa. When Burnett exited his vehicle both Bussey and Chappa observed him to be intoxicated. Bussey and Chapa smelled the odor of alcohol on Burnett’s breath and noticed his speech to be slurred. Additionally, the first officer on the scene also noticed Burnett to have slurred speech and the odor of alcohol on his breath. Burnett told officers that he had not been drinking and consented to taking the standard field sobriety tests. Burnett showed signs of intoxication during the all three tests and was subsequently arrested.

In a search incident to arrest, officers found pills in Burnett’s jacket and a prescription pill bottle located in his car. The pills and prescription bottle were not photographed or admitted into evidence.

The State later charged Burnett with a Class B misdemeanor DWI and alleged that he was intoxicated “by not having the normal use of his mental and physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of the substances, and any other substance into his body . . .”

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress—The Trial Court Granted Defendant’s Motion then Subsequently Admitted the Excluded Evidence as Same-Transaction Evidence.

One of the officers who saw the pills at the scene thought they were hydrocodone and was going to testify regarding such. The defendant filed a motion to suppress arguing that the officers should not be able to testify to what type of pills they found because the officers were not drug recognition experts. The trial court granted the motion to suppress.

Nonetheless, the following day at trial the pill discussion was brought up again. The state advised the Court that there was video evidence from the scene showing officer Coapland, officer Allred, and Burnett talking about the pills. Specifically, it showed that “Coapland found the pills in Burnett’s jacket, he gave them to Allred, who said that the pills looked like hydrocodone. Allred asked Burnett whether he had a prescription for the medication, and Burnett responded that he did.”

The State argued that the evidence of Burnett’s pill possession should be admitted into evidence as same-transaction contextual evidence. Over Burnett’s same objection the trial court admitted the pill evidence.

Then, when the court submitted the instructions to the jury, it included in the full statutory definition of the legal term “intoxicated,” which included not only intoxication by introduction of alcohol, but also by introduction of a drug (or a combination of alcohol and drugs).  Burnett objected to this definition, arguing that the proper instruction should not include language regarding drug intoxication because there was no evidence produced at trial to indicate that he had ingested any drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Court of Appeals Agreed with the Defendant—Holding that it to be Error to Submit the Entire Statutory Language.

On appeal, Burnett argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he was in possession of hydrocodone and further argued that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could convict him if it found that any substance other than alcohol intoxicated him.

The court of appeals agreed and held that the charging instrument must apply the law to the facts. In support they distinguished the facts in Burnett from those in Ouellette, a 2011 court of criminal appeals case.

In Ouellette, the defendant appeared intoxicated. After her arrest, officers found a drug that she expressly identified that was known to produce the same symptoms of intoxication as alcohol. Although there was no direct evidence that she consumed the drug, there was circumstantial evidence from which a rational juror could have found that she did based on her express identification of the drug and the officer’s testimony that the drug would produce similar symptoms. Thus, the jury charge in Ouellette reflected the law as it applied to the evidence.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed the COA Judgment and Agreed that the Jury Charge was Erroneous Since it did not Apply the Law to the Facts Produced at Trial.

The State appealed the appellate court reversal and argued that the jury charge should include the entire statutory definition regardless of the evidence presented at trial. More specifically, the State argued that the focus is only on whether the defendant is intoxicated, not the intoxicant itself. In support of this argument, the State referred to Judge Cochran’s dissenting opinion in Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125, 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting).

In response, Burnett argued that while the State only needs to allege that the defendant was “intoxicated” and is permitted to use the language of the entire statutory definition, it would be erroneous to provide the jury with a section of statutory language that is not supported by the evidence at trial. Burnett argued that ruling for the State would allow “such guessing [that] could ensnare thousands of innocent Texans, such as fatigued drivers and those with naturally bad balance, even though they never ingested any substance as required to prove intoxication.” Burnett also claimed that the State misinterpreted Judge Cochran’s dissent and would not apply.

The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the State misinterpreted Judge Cochran’s dissent; the dissent discussed pleadings rather than jury charges and thus, was not applicable. Furthermore, the Court declined to follow the State’s argument that in every case the full statutory language should be allowed regardless of evidence. The court reasoned that the trial court is responsible for ensuring the jury instructions set forth the law applicable to the evidence in the case. As such, the jury charge must be tailored to the facts presented during the trial.

The court also noted that a jury will still be permitted to consider whether the defendant is intoxicated by “any other substance” if there is evidence that the defendant ingested a substance that caused intoxication or there is circumstantial evidence for a rational juror to make an inference, like Ouellette.

Here, the Court determined that Burnett only showed signs of intoxication by alcohol—nothing else. The odor of alcohol was present on his breath, he had slurred speech and he failed the field sobriety tests. The fact that police later found pills that may have been hydrocodone was irrelevant because “there was no evidence as to what kind of drug hydrocodone is, whether it can cause intoxicating effects, or whether the symptoms of intoxication Burnett was experiencing were also indicative of intoxication by hydrocodone.” These criteria were the critical elements that were present in Ouellette but not in Burnett’s case. Accordingly, the court held the jury charge in Burnett’s case to be erroneous because it did not apply the law to the evidence presented at trial and it constituted harmful error.

Takeaways…

In any DWI case, if there is no evidence presented at trial that would suggest intoxication by drugs or vice versa by alcohol, then the defense should ask for the statutory language in the jury charge to be limited to only facts produced. Additionally, the mere fact that drugs are found is not enough, by itself, to have such language in the jury charge. If Burnett had not objected to the full statutory definition of intoxication, he could have been finally convicted based on evidence never presented at trial. (In Judge Richardson’s concurring opinion he also notes that there were no objections made to the evidence in Ouellette).

Judge Richardson Concurring Opinion

Presiding Judge Keller Dissenting Opinion

Judge Yeary Dissenting Opinion

Dec 02
Love0

If You Don’t Have Anything Nice to Say…

By Jury Trial

Jury Instruction on Failure of Family to Testify During Sentencing

After the defendant was convicted in the case of Lucio v. State, and the case proceeded to the punishment phase, the jury noticed something conspicuous about the defense case…nobody from the defendant’s family came to the witness stand to testify on his behalf. No poor momma with tears in her eyes. No sister or brother to testify about what a good person the defendant is at heart. Nothing. Just crickets. Curious about why nobody from the defendant’s family testified, the jury sent a question in to the trial judge while they were deliberating on the sentence:

Does the law prevent a family member from speaking during the sentencing phase, for the defendant?

Over defense counsel objection, the trial court provided the following response to the jury:

The law does not prohibit a family member from testifying on behalf of a defendant so long as the witness has relevant evidence related to an issue in the case. You have heard all of the witnesses who have been called to testify. Please continue your deliberations.

Of course, there were two inferences that the jury could reasonably draw from the instruction: (1) none of the available family members could provide relevant information, or (2) the defendant did not want to call any family members because they would not provide favorable testimony.

On appeal, the defense argued that the trial court’s instruction was an improper comment on the evidence. The 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) disagreed and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to settle the issue. Here’s what the CCA held:

We conclude that the general rule that prohibits the court from singling out a particular piece of evidence in its instructions to the jury given prior the jury deliberations does not necessarily apply when the court merely responds to the jury’s question concerning a subject identified by the jury.

The court noted that the court’s instruction was a correct statement of the law that did not improperly convey a “personal estimation of the strength or credibility” of evidence. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals.

Judge Meyers dissented, opining that:

the trial court’s instructions indicate to the jury that it is permissible to focus on the fact that the defendant’s family did not testify at punishment. In doing so, the judge expressed an opinion as to the weight of the evidence…

Aug 30
Love0

The Facebook Jury Instruction

By Jury Trial

As I was perusing my typical news sources this morning, I came across this article about a Tarrant County juror who was excused from a civil case and then charged with contempt for trying to “friend” the defendant in the case on Facebook.  That’s the world in which we live, I suppose.  Everything is real-time, social media is pervasive, and folks are indiscriminate about what they do online.  It has already been and will continue to be interesting to see how the trial judges tackle this issue in their instructions to venire panels.  It is probably prudent to have a standard Facebook jury instruction.