 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sherrard v. State5/22/2000
The jury convicted Charles Lawrence Sherrard of felony driving while intoxicated, and the trial court sentenced him to three years in prison. In four points of error, he complains about improper argument by the State and the legal sufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we overrule all points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Factual Background
Pottsboro police officer Sean Lewers responded to a one-car accident and found that a Dodge convertible had crashed head-on into a tree. The vehicle had no occupants, and there was blood on the steering wheel. Witnesses at the scene indicated to Lewers that the driver had fled on foot into a nearby field. Lewers went into the wooded area and saw appellant "stumbling around." Appellant had a bloody nose. Lewers asked appellant why he had run from the scene, and appellant told him he did not want to "get in any trouble." Lewers believed appellant had been the driver of the vehicle and said he believed appellant was intoxicated. Appellant was transported to the hospital. Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Shannon Thomas testified he interviewed appellant in the hospital, asked him what happened, and appellant told him he was driving the car and hit a tree.
Carl Snyder said he was driving down the road when he saw the convertible against a tree and watched as a man climbed out of the passenger side of the car. According to Snyder, the man "fell out. . . almost face first" and then ran into a field. Snyder identified the man as appellant. Snyder believed the accident had just occurred and said appellant "was the only person around."
The State called another five witnesses; none witnessed the crash or could identify appellant as the driver of the car. However, one of the witnesses, an emergency medical technician, testified appellant told him that he had hit his nose on the steering wheel. Also, the emergency physician recalled that appellant told him he had struck the steering wheel.
Legal Sufficiency
In his fourth point of error, appellant complains the evidence is legally insufficient to show that he was operating a motor vehicle on the night in question. In particular, he complains that no witness saw him driving the car and argues that "a conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the circumstances do not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt." We disagree.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abolished the reasonable-hypothesis construct for measuring sufficiency of the evidence in a circumstantial evidence case in Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 160 (Tex. Crim . App. 1991). When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 309 (1979); Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). This standard leaves to the fact finder the responsibility to resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic to ultimate facts. See Dumas v. State, 812 S.W.2d 611, 615 (Tex. App._Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). The fact finder is free to accept to reject any or all evidence presented by either side. See Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Evidence at trial showed that appellant told Trooper Thomas that he was driving the car. This evidence alone was sufficient to establish that appellant was operating a motor vehicle. Moreover, there was abundant circumstantial evidence:<
Page 1 2 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|