 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baird v. State2/12/1997
Delivered and Filed: February 12, 1997
02/12/1997
AFFIRMED
INTRODUCTION
Donald Iran Baird was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). Trial was to the court, which found him guilty as charged and assessed punishment pursuant to a plea agreement at two years probation, a $600 fine, and court costs. We affirm the judgement of the trial court.
DISCUSSION
Baird claims in his sole point of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was arrested without a warrant or probable cause. In his motion, Baird sought to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of his arrest. The trial court denied Baird's motion to suppress after holding a pretrial evidentiary hearing. The sole witness at this hearing was Officer Richard Lee Glenn of the Kirby Police Department. Glenn testified that at approximately 2:19 a.m. on February 23, 1995, he received a dispatch directing him to the scene of a hit-and-run accident. Glenn stated that when he arrived at the scene, he found a pick-up truck in the middle of the road, which had obviously been involved in a recent accident, and a white van that had apparently been hit by the truck. Two witnesses at the scene told Glenn that the driver of the truck got out of the vehicle and walked or ran toward the Pour House Bar.
Glenn then drove to a nearby strip shopping center where the Pour House Bar was located. Glenn encountered Baird and a witness, Ronald Snyder, when he arrived at the strip center. He asked them if they were the ones involved in the accident, and Snyder responded by pointing to Baird, indicating that Baird was the one involved in the accident. Glenn asked Baird for some identification and Baird then told him that he "had a little accident" but "didn't do anything wrong." Upon questioning Snyder, Glenn learned that Snyder saw Baird drive off in his truck at a high rate of speed from the bar, watched him go around the corner, and then heard a loud crash. Snyder told Glenn that he then saw Baird coming back toward the bar away from the truck. Apparently, Baird attempted to persuade Snyder to give him a ride home, but Snyder stalled Baird until the police arrived.
After this conversation with Snyder, Glenn drove Baird to the scene of the accident, where two witnesses implicated Baird in the accident. One witness said she heard the crash and saw Baird get out of the truck and run westbound toward the bar. The other witness identified Baird from his clothing as the man he had seen running from the accident. Other evidence was gathered as well. Glenn noticed a crack on the windshield of the truck and a red mark on Baird's forehead, Baird had the keys to the truck in his pocket, and the mail inside the truck was addressed to Baird.
Glenn stated that during his time with Baird, he had an opportunity to observe Baird's condition. Glenn testified that Baird smelled strongly of alcohol, had blood-shot eyes, and slurred his words when he spoke. Glenn concluded Baird was intoxicated and placed him under arrest because Glenn believed he was a danger to himself and others, as he had just been involved in an accident and attempted to flee the scene. Baird refused to submit to a breath test, but was videotaped by the police.
At a hearing on a motion to suppress, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), overruled on other grounds, Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We should not disturb the trial court's ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Dubose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493, 4
Page 1 2 3 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|