Alexis Aguayo v. State
08-13-00283-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 4, 2015Background
- Appellant (17 at time of incident) was involved in a May 27, 2012 traffic crash, smelled of alcohol, and was taken to the hospital; a good Samaritan pulled him from his burning car.
- Officer Gandara arrested Appellant for DWI at the hospital, read the statutory DIC-24 warnings, and obtained Appellant’s signed consent to draw blood; result: BAC 0.188 and prosecution under Tex. Penal Code §49.04(d).
- Appellant contested voluntariness of consent, claiming he was medicated, in pain, and intermittently unconscious; consent interaction was not videotaped.
- Trial court admitted the blood evidence after voir dire and jury instruction requiring the jury to find consent beyond a reasonable doubt; Appellant convicted; sentence probated confinement and fine.
- On appeal, Appellant raised: (1) Fourth Amendment claim that consent was not voluntary; (2) Fifth Amendment/Miranda/Art. 38.22 claim that warnings/custodial-interrogation protections were required; and (3) Equal Protection claim that the Family Code’s videotaping requirement discriminates among 17‑year‑olds.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of blood-draw (Fourth Amendment) | Consent was involuntary due to medication, pain, intermittent consciousness, and hospital setting | Consent was voluntary: Appellant coherent, recalled key warnings, phlebotomist and officer corroborated; trial court entitled to credit witnesses | Court upheld admission — totality of circumstances showed clear and convincing evidence of voluntary consent; trial court’s credibility findings sustained |
| Miranda/Fifth Amendment and Art. 38.22 | Officer should have advised right to remain silent/right to counsel before eliciting consent; absence of such warnings rendered statements inadmissible | Reading DIC-24 and requesting blood are routine, scripted, non-custodial interrogation not invoking Miranda or Art. 38.22 safeguards | Court held Miranda/Art.38.22 protections did not apply to the statutory warnings/consent process; admission proper |
| Equal Protection — videotaping requirement in Family Code | Statute treats law‑abiding 17‑year‑olds worse than delinquent 17‑year‑olds (only some 17‑year‑olds get videotaped), violating equal protection | Appellant lacks standing because videotaping requirement didn’t apply when already at a medical facility; classification survives rational-basis review | Court found no standing and, on merits, rational basis exists for distinguishing delinquent 17‑year‑olds; equal protection claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (blood draw is a search/seizure under Fourth Amendment)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntary consent is an exception to warrant requirement; totality-of-circumstances test)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation warnings requirement)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (refusal/consent to chemical test is not a Miranda interrogation in DWI context)
- Fienen v. State, 390 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. Crim. App. — State must prove voluntary consent to blood draw by clear and convincing evidence)
- McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499 (consent/refusal to breath test not custodial interrogation)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (equal protection: classifications reviewed under rational-basis when no suspect class or fundamental right implicated)