 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beaster v. State3/24/1999
The trial court convicted Sue Ann Beaster of driving while intoxicated (DWI). In one point of error, appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction.
At trial, highway patrolman Joel Smith testified that he was dispatched to investigate a one- car accident on the Beltline Road exit ramp from the Dallas North Tollway. Smith testified that he had driven past the Beltline ramp at approximately 1:00 a.m. and there was no accident there at that time. Smith testified that he received the dispatch call at 1:21 a.m. and arrived at the accident scene at 1:29 a.m. Based on his experience investigating Tollway accidents, Smith opined that an accident at this location would have been reported quickly. As Smith arrived, appellant exited her car from the passenger door. Smith testified that the driver's door was inoperative because of damage from the accident. Smith also testified that no one else was present near appellant's vehicle. There were no witnesses to the accident. Smith testified that no alcoholic beverage containers were in plain view in appellant's car. Smith further estimated that, if appellant had walked from the accident scene to the nearest bar, consumed alcoholic beverages, and then returned to her car, the trip would have taken forty-five minutes. A videotape of Smith's arrival at the accident scene, from the onboard camera in his patrol car, was played for the trial court. The videotape appears to show appellant sitting in her car with her feet on the ground at the time of Smith's arrival.
Smith testified that he could smell alcohol on appellant's breath and she was confused about how the accident happened. Smith, a fifteen-year officer, testified to his training in administering field sobriety tests. He described having appellant perform several field sobriety tests before arresting her. Smith also testified that appellant told him she was driving the car when he asked for the driver's name for his accident report. On the way to the police station, appellant fell asleep in Smith's car. Smith testified that, in his opinion, appellant had lost the normal use of her mental and physical faculties due to alcohol intoxication.
The videotape shot at the police station shows appellant performing well on a walk-and-turn test but performing poorly when asked to recite the alphabet. The videotape also shows appellant, after receiving statutory warnings, confessing to Smith that she had consumed four beers at a friend's house. Appellant answered negatively to Smith's question about whether she had been drinking and driving. Although Smith did not ask appellant directly whether she was driving the car, he did ask her questions about how the accident happened and, from her explanation, it could be reasonably concluded that appellant was driving. Appellant also told Smith that the accident occurred while she was returning to her home. Appellant identified her residence as an apartment on Beltline Road. Appellant agreed to provide breath samples. The intoxilyzer results revealed her alcohol level to be .172 and .166.
Appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to show the time frame during which she was driving and thus, the evidence is insufficient to show that she was intoxicated at the time she had the accident. The fact finder, however, no longer has to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in reaching its decision. See Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 159-61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). It was the fact finder's role to weigh the credibility of the witness and to determine the weight to give to his testimony. See Dumas v. State, 812 S.W.2d 611, 615 (Tex. App._Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). Smith's testimony limited
Page 1 2 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|