This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of battery on a peace officer, aggravated driving while intoxicated (refusal), and evading or obstructing an officer. The charges stemmed from an incident where the Defendant resisted arrest, kicked an officer, and exhibited signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the smell of alcohol. The Defendant claimed he acted in self-defense and attributed his behavior to a spider bite and the use of rubbing alcohol for an injury.
Procedural History
- District Court of Guadalupe County: The Defendant was convicted of battery on a peace officer, aggravated driving while intoxicated (refusal), and evading or obstructing an officer.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions, the district court erred in denying a directed verdict, excluding evidence, and allowing certain testimony. The Defendant also claimed his right to confrontation was violated and sought to amend the docketing statement to raise new issues.
- Appellee (State): Contended that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, the district court acted within its discretion in its rulings, and the Defendant’s arguments lacked merit.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for battery on a peace officer?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated (refusal)?
- Did the district court err in denying the Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict?
- Did the district court err in excluding certain evidence, including medical records and a tooth?
- Did the district court violate the Defendant’s right to confrontation by admitting certain testimony?
- Should the Defendant be allowed to amend the docketing statement to raise new issues?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.
- The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement.
- The case was remanded to the district court to correct a typographical error in the judgment and sentence.
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):
-
Sufficiency of Evidence for Battery on a Peace Officer: The Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, including testimony that the Defendant resisted arrest, kicked the officer, and acted in a threatening manner. The jury was entitled to reject the Defendant’s self-defense claim.
-
Sufficiency of Evidence for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated: The Court concluded that the evidence, including the Defendant’s physical signs of intoxication, refusal to submit to a chemical test, and erratic driving, supported the conviction. The Defendant’s alternative explanation was not equally plausible.
-
Directed Verdict Motion: The Defendant abandoned this issue by failing to address it in his memorandum in opposition. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion.
-
Exclusion of Evidence: The Court upheld the exclusion of medical records for lack of foundation and the tooth due to late disclosure. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that these rulings were an abuse of discretion.
-
Right to Confrontation: The Court rejected the Defendant’s confrontation argument, finding that the officer’s testimony about the dispatcher’s call was not hearsay and was admissible to explain the circumstances of the stop. Any error in admitting the testimony was harmless given the substantial evidence of intoxication.
-
Motion to Amend Docketing Statement: The Court denied the motion, finding the new issues raised by the Defendant to be non-viable.
-
Remand for Typographical Correction: The Court remanded the case to correct a typographical error in the judgment and sentence, which incorrectly cited the statutory provision for the aggravated DWI conviction.