CONTENTS v01. 18, NO. 10 FEATURE ARTICLES - Voice For The ...

(Tex.App. -Dallas, 1983).-held'~t isjury n~isconduct forthejurorsto convict a defendant because there wastestimony that he consumed a certainamount of alcohol which the jurors feltwould have caused them to be intoxicated,and where said decision was made onevidence outside the record, i.e., their ownrespective tolerance with alcohol consumption.4) Lack of a Cl~ernical Ted WithoutRejirsal: Matter not in EvidenceRoe v. State, 69 1 S.W.2d 73 1 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1985).-held: Indefendant's trial for DWI, juryimproperly consideredevidence other thanthat presented in court where defendant'srefusal to take breathalyzer test was notoffered in evidence and where jury consideredthe lack of breathalyzer testevidence as an indication that defendantmust have declined test because he felt hewas intoxicated.5) False Answers During Voir DireStowe v. State, 745 S.W.2d 568(Tex.App.-Houston [lst] 2/18/88).-held: False andfor misleading answersby prospective juror during voir dire mayviolate due process. However, the recordto show a violation must show: (1) thequestion asked, (2) the answer given; and,(3) that the juror did not tell the truth.Nontranscrihed questions and answerscannot be judicially noticed by the trialconlt.6) Jlcry ShrrSfleUrbano v. State, S.W.2d(Tex.App. -Houston [Ist Dist.] 6/16/88).-held: No harm in granting state a juryshuffle afterdefendant had received apriorshuffle.Batchelor v. State, - S.W.2d -(Tex.App.Dallas, 848/88).-held: Defendant's right to shuffle includesright to see jury fust in the orderthey will be seated. Violation of said rightis automatic reversible error and no harmneed be shown.Berkenler v. McCariy, 104 S.Ct. 3138 Intoxication(1984).-held: Miranda safeguards attach assoon as a suspect's freedom of action iscurtailed to a degree associated with formalarrest. See also, NY: v. Qlrarles, 104S.Ct. 2626 (1984) (public safety exception).XXm. Motions to QuashI) Faihrre to Spec~fi "Per Se " or "Impairment"Garrdiri v. State, 703 S.W.2d 789(Tex.App. - Waco, 1985).-held: No need to specify. But see Rayv. State, 749 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App. - SanAntonio) (opinion on rehearing 4/29/88)(error not to specify).2) Intoxication by .lOorLossofNormalFaculties in One ParagraphBut Defendant needs to show harm ifrecord has statement of facts to get reversal.But see, Walker v. State, 751 S.W.2d268 (Tex.App.-SanAntonio,5/4/88) (it isreversihleerrorifmotion is not grantedandthere is no statement of facts as harm ispresumed).Sims v. State, 735 S.W.2d 913(Tex.App. -Dallas, 1987).-held: No error.3) Failure to Specify Public PlaceKing v. State, 696 S.W.2d 302(Tex.App. -Fort Worth 1985), remanded,728 S.W.2d 381 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987) onremand, 732 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.App. - FortWorth, 1987).-held: No need to specify.4) Failirre to Specffi 111toxication ofBreath, Blood or UrinePerryman v. State, 687 S.W.2d 371(Tex.App. - Houston, 1984) (pet. pending).-held: No need to specify. But see, Solisv. State, 742 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.App. - SanAntonio, 1987) (error not to specify).5) Failure to Specify "Zntoxication " inMotion to Revoke ProbationGarcia v. State, 747 S.W.2d 379(Tex.Cr.App.,No. 1241-86,1988).-held: Information alleging that thedefendant didnot have normal use of mentaland physical faculties whiledriving wasinsrrficient to inform him of the mannerandmeans of intoxication, i.e., by alcohol,drug, controlled substance or combinationthereof.7) Failure to Specifi Maliner andMeans of Horv Vehicle Was OperatedDahl v. State, 707 S.W.2d 694(Tex.App. -Austin, 1986).-held: No need to specify.8) Failure to Speclfi Auton~obile BeingDrivenBiederman v. State, 724 S.W.2d 436(Tex.App. Eastland, 1987).-held: No need to specify.9) Waiver ofMotion to Quash by PleadingGzriliyLugan v. State, 679 S.W.2d 179(Tex.App. -Fort Worth, 1984).-held: Defendant who pleads guiltywaives right to complain on appeal thatinformation failed to provide him propernotice. Butsee Teague 11. State, 737 S.W.2d105 (Tex.App. Corpus 1987).-held: Not waiver by pleaof nolo. However,absent statement of facts no harm canbe shown.10) "Under the Inf7zrence" vs. "Intoxicated"Maddox v. State, 705 S.W.2d 739(Tex.App. 1987) (pet. granted).-held: Information that pled "under theinfluence of intoxicating liquor" ratherthan "intoxicated" was sufficient to chargecrime of DWI.11) Open Container: Failirre to Define"bnmediate possessior~ " ond Open CalltainerState v. Scharbrough, 732 S.W.2d 445(Tex.App. 1987).-held: No need to define.XXVI. Lesser Included OffensesTracks ". 744 S'W'2d 677 12)A111e11dingtl1eI1~0fonnation(Tex.App. - Austin, 1988).See, supra, Section entitled Double-held: In MRP it is not error to fail to Dixon v. State, 737 S.W.2d 134Jeopardy. specify the particular definition of in- (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 1987).XXVII. Miranda Warnings toxication. -held: Legislative amendments to Art.28.09 and 28.10 now allow for amend-1) Attachment 6) Failirre to Specify Substance CairsingJune 1989 I VOICE for the Deferlse 29