Alfred Lee Rice v. State
11-13-00302-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 30, 2015Background
- Appellant Alfred Lee Rice was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (motor vehicle) and intoxication manslaughter; sentences 50 and 60 years, to run concurrently.
- Crash facts: Rice was driving a Buick north on Lamesa Road at very high speed (~78 mph per reconstruction) and struck Hearne’s vehicle as Hearne entered the intersection after stopping; passenger Benita Harmon died from injuries.
- Multiple officers and a physician detected odor of alcohol and slurred speech; Rice admitted he had been drinking.
- Hospital personnel drew blood for medical purposes (serum test = 0.27); a police-directed vial was tested by DPS (whole-blood = 0.258).
- Officers relied on implied-consent/mandatory-draw provisions and did not obtain a warrant for the police vial; defense challenged admissibility of that warrantless draw.
- Appellant raised four appellate issues: sufficiency of intoxication evidence, admission of warrantless blood evidence, and two complaints about prosecutor’s closing argument (bolstering/improper comments).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rice) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence of intoxication for intoxication manslaughter | Circumstantial and direct evidence (BAC tests, officers’ observations, admissions, reconstruction) establishes temporal link between intoxication and driving. | BAC/testimony insufficient to prove intoxication at time of driving; without police vial evidence conviction cannot stand. | Affirmed — evidence (observations, admissions, serum and whole-blood tests, speed/reconstruction) sufficient. |
| 2. Admission of warrantless police blood vial | Even if admission of police vial was error, hospital/serum results and testimony were admitted without objection and render any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Warrantless mandatory blood draw violated Fourth Amendment; evidence derived should have been excluded. | Affirmed — any error in admitting the police vial was harmless because similar hospital evidence and other proof supported verdict. |
| 3. Prosecutor bolstering (statement about presumption ending once evidence presented) | Prosecutor’s comments were permissible argument or invited by defense; not objected to at trial. | Statement improperly bolstered witnesses and injected prosecutor’s personal opinion. | Affirmed — claim waived for lack of timely objection; no preserved error. |
| 4. Other improper closing comments | State: arguments were fair and responsive to evidence; no contemporaneous objection. | Comments were improper and prejudicial. | Affirmed — waived by failure to object; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applying Jackson standard)
- Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App.) (temporal link requirement for intoxication-driving)
- Meggs v. State, 438 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (harmless-error analysis where similar evidence admitted)
- State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Crim. App.) (hospital blood drawn for treatment may not implicate Fourth Amendment)