 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Payne v. State8/29/2003
." Id. at 286 (citing Inness v. State, 106 Tex. Crim. 524, 527, 293 S.W. 821, 822 (1926)). Since there was no opinion testimony by a qualified witness as to whether Smithhart was under the influence of drugs, the court analyzed the evidence to determine whether the State had shown, by circumstantial evidence, that Smithhart was intoxicated. Id. at 285.
The court noted that the only evidence to support Smithhart's conviction was the testimony of Bolden that 1) Smithhart's speech was incoherent and his eyes were glassy, 2) the point of impact of the accident was two feet from the center strip of the highway in the inside lane, 3) Smithhart stated he had just come from the doctor's office, 4) Smithhart had told Bolden he was taking Valium and had been drinking vodka that morning, and 5) Smithhart possessed an empty prescription bottle. Id. at 285-86. In holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the court stated that
he missing essential element is a showing which would connect the symptoms observed by Bolden to a conclusion that appellant was under the influence of a drug to a degree rendering him incapable of safely operating a vehicle. Just as there was an absence of evidence to qualify Bolden to give his opinion on this point, so was there an absence of any other evidence from which the jury could draw such a conclusion.
Id. at 286.
The instant case is markedly different from Smithhart because 1) expert testimony connected Appellant's symptoms observed by the officers to the drugs she had taken and 2) the jury could have relied on circumstantial evidence to determine that Appellant was intoxicated "by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a dangerous drug, or a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body. . . ." Dr. Parchman testified about two of the drugs, Soma and Lortab, that Appellant admitted taking on the morning of the accident in question. She told the jury that Soma is a sleeping pill that makes a person feel "drowsy and less alert and fall asleep." Dr. Parchman also testified that Lortab is "hydrocodone with some acetaminophen" and is a "mid-level narcotic" pain medication. Appellant admitted that she had consumed a 16-ounce beer that morning. Dr. Parchman's testimony, along with the officers' testimony that Appellant seemed "drowsy," her eyes seemed "glazed over and without depth," had poor balance, "mumbled some things" that they could not understand, and had "poor and slurred" speech supports the jury's verdict that Appellant was intoxicated. The description of the way Appellant was driving immediately before the accident occurred, coupled with Dr. Parchman's testimony and the officers' description of Appellant's demeanor and her performance on the sobriety tests, also provided further circumstantial evidence that the jury could have relied on in its determination that Appellant did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of one or more substances into her body. Therefore, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of intoxication manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.
With regard to the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the record contains evidence that Appellant was ill and not intoxicated on the morning of the accident. We note that, as the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given their testimony, the jury may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness's testimony. Penagraph v. State, 623 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ("A jury is entitled to accept one version of the facts and reject another or
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|