 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thornton v. State3/28/2001
ene of an accident has been found to supply sufficient corroborating circumstances of the "operating" and "intoxication" elements of driving while intoxicated. In Sandoval v. State, 422 S.W.2d 458, 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967), the vehicle was registered to the defendant, who was alone at the scene and found to be intoxicated shortly after the accident. In Fruechte v. State, 166 Tex. Crim. 496, 316 S.W.2d 418, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958), when the vehicle was tracked from the scene the apparently intoxicated defendant was discovered behind the wheel. In Chaloupka, 20 S.W.3d at 175, the defendant was driving erratically, caused a collision, then stopped down the road and drank at least one bottle of beer. In Perkins v. State, 19 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex. App.--Waco 2000, pet. denied), the defendant was passed out in the front seat with his foot on the brake and the engine running. In Purvis, 4 S.W.3d at 121, the defendant was found passed out on the driver's seat and once aroused appeared to be intoxicated. In Peddicord v. State, 942 S.W.2d 100, 104 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1997, no pet.), the apparently intoxicated defendant was in the driver's seat within minutes of the accident. In Kerr v. State, 921 S.W.2d 498, 501 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.), someone was spinning the tires of a vehicle in a ditch, then the defendant got out of the car alone. In Turner v. State, 877 S.W.2d 513, 514-15 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1994, no pet.), the engine was still steaming and there were no other people in the vicinity. In Kennedy v. State, 797 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no pet.), the defendant appeared to be intoxicated at the scene and there was no evidence that he ingested alcohol after the accident. In Folk, 797 S.W.2d at 143, the defendant was intoxicated, and a single cool beer can was found in the car, which was registered to the defendant's cohabitant.
Tracks ran from the public roadway to the red truck, a motor vehicle which belonged to Thornton. The only other person at the scene was driving a different vehicle. Thornton was observed in the driver's seat at the scene of the collision and moments later his vehicle's radiator was observed to be steaming. He did not appear to have been injured and rejected offered medical assistance. Thornton smelled strongly of alcohol, exhibited symptoms of intoxication, and could not even stand without assistance. We hold the State established the corpus delecti.
Thornton admitted he was the driver of the wrecked truck and that he had been drinking a lot of alcohol in temporal proximity to the accident. The fact that he ran his truck off the road and into a tree suggests he did not have the normal use of his mental and physical faculties while he was driving. After the accident, Thornton was behaving in a manner indicative of extreme intoxication. He repeatedly stated that he was drunk. We hold that as the factfinder, the trial court could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that while intoxicated Thornton operated a motor vehicle in a public place.
Thornton argues that the evidence is factually insufficient because the State failed to establish a fixed time for the accident and failed to exclude the possibility that Thornton became intoxicated after he ceased to operate the vehicle. In Perkins, 19 S.W.3d at 857, witnesses testified that the defendant had consumed only one beer before driving, and the defendant testified he was not passed out in his car but was looking at a map. A videotape provided objective evidence that the appellant could perform the sobriety tests at the police station, and the appellant testified he did fine on the field sobriety tests. Id. at 858. Court of Appeals compared that evidence to the firefighter'
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|