 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Seifert v. State8/5/1999
ime between the time you stopped him at 7:19 and the time he was at the Garland police station, you don't know whether he was in the elimination phase or the absorption phase, do you?"
[HINEY]:
"You're right. I don't know what phase of intoxication he was in."
[COUNSEL]:
"Okay. Do you think that if I, say, drink a couple of Bloody Marys at 7:30 in the morning that at 7:30 that evening it's going to amount to a hill of beans?"
[HINEY]:
"That I don't know."
[COUNSEL]:
"Well, you just told me earlier that you know that a person is using up one beer an hour."
[HINEY]:
"Yes. But we have also determined that I don't know the absorption rate."
[COUNSEL]:
"So, you think a person might 12 hours later still be feeling the effects of the two Bloody Marys?"
[HINEY]:
"I am telling you I can't speculate on that."
[COUNSEL]:
"You just don't know?"
[HINEY]:
"Right. I don't have the information to be able to give you an answer."
Under no circumstance could Hiney answer the questions asked of him.
In his fourth point of error, appellant complains that Hiney was not allowed to answer whether a person's blood alcohol level is going up or down thirty minutes to an hour after his arrest. Hiney essentially answered this question in the above bill of exceptions. He had no knowledge whether a person's blood alcohol level would be highest right after he was arrested or one hour later.
In his fifth point of error, appellant complains that the trial court would not allow Hiney to answer whether someone who drank a pint of vodka would shortly become intoxicated. Outside the presence of the jury, Hiney testified that he did not know the rate at which the body absorbed alcohol. Consequently, Hiney could never answer appellant's question.
In his sixth point of error, appellant complains that Hiney was not allowed to answer whether it would make any difference if a person ingested an alcoholic beverage at 7:00 a.m. and was stopped at 7:30 p.m. that same day. Outside the presence of the jury, Hiney responded that he did not know the answer to that question.
In his seventh point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow G.E. Cummings, a Garland police officer, to answer a question regarding performance on the sobriety tests. Cummings testified that appellant told him he had a neck problem and had complained about the handcuffs hurting him. Appellant then questioned Cummings on whether a person experiencing some physical pain would have a diminished capacity to follow field sobriety test instructions. The trial court sustained the State's objection that Cummings answering would call "for him to speculate."
Outside the jury's presence, appellant perfected his bill of exceptions. Cummings responded to the objected-to question as follows:
[COUNSEL]:
"Okay. Would you agree with me that if my client was feeling pain from the handcuffs, as he indicated on the video tape, that that could be a factor in his ability to digest instructions about the field sobriety tests?"
[CUMMINGS]:
"I really don't think that is at all related."
[COUNSEL]:
"You wouldn't think that would be a factor at all?"
[CUMMINGS]:
"In my opinion, no, sir."
After reviewing Cummings's answer to the complained-of question, it is hard to see how appellant would benefit from Cummings answer in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|