 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. State6/20/2003
Sitting: Alma L. Lopez, Chief Justice, Catherine Stone, Justice, Paul W. Green, Justice (concur in judgment only)
AFFIRMED
We grant reconsideration of this case in light of Wilson's Petition for Discretionary Review. We withdraw our opinion of April 30, 2003 and substitute the following in its place to clarify the issue of the defense of necessity.
Richard Wilson ("Wilson") was indicted for the offense of attempted capital murder of a police officer. A jury found Wilson guilty, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Wilson asserts five issues on appeal, contending: (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict because the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the evidence was factually insufficient to sustain his conviction; (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to suppress evidence that Wilson had resisted being fingerprinted after his arrest on the basis that the State did not comply with the Rule 404(b) notice requirement and that such evidence was not relevant and prejudicial; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing Wilson to cross-examine the complainant officer as to information bearing on his state of mind; and (5) the trial court erred in refusing to submit the defense of necessity in the jury charge. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background and Procedural History
Because Wilson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, a recitation of the facts is necessary.
In the early morning hours of June 3, 2002, Officer Dale Hancock ("Hancock") made a routine traffic stop. He pulled Wilson over for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Wilson was giving an acquaintance, Ruth Salinas ("Salinas"), a ride home. Hancock testified that he approached the driver's side of the car and asked Wilson for his license and insurance. Wilson replied that he had left them at home. Noticing that Wilson's eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that the smell of alcohol was on his breath, Hancock asked Wilson to step outside of the car to perform a field sobriety test. Hancock told Wilson to stand at the back driver side of the car so that he could check on the passenger, Salinas. While Hancock was talking to Salinas, he looked up and noticed that Wilson had moved to the back passenger side of the car where Hancock was unable to see him fully. Hancock went over to Wilson and told him to get back out in the middle of the street. When Wilson put his hand behind his back, Hancock told him to get his hand out from behind his back. Wilson complied.
Hancock told Wilson that he thought he was intoxicated, so he was going to ask him to perform a field sobriety test. In order for Hancock to perform the test, he went back to his patrol car to turn off the flashing lights. Hancock looked over his shoulder to make sure that Wilson had stayed in the same spot; however, when he looked back the second time, Wilson had again moved to the back passenger side of the car and again had his hand behind his back. Hancock turned around and walked toward Wilson, telling him to get his hand out from behind his back and to move back out into the street. As Hancock was telling him this, Wilson started backing away from him with his right hand behind his back and looking from side to side. Hancock continued towards Wilson and repeatedly told him to get his hand out from behind his back. Hancock testified that when Wilson pulled his hand out, he pointed a chrome gun at Hancock and told him he was going to kill him. As Hancock turned around to look for cover, he heard Wilson's gun "click." Hancock testified that he ran towards the driver's side of his patrol car for c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|