Bobby Joe Stovall v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9272
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Stovall was convicted of DWI, enhanced to a first-degree felony, with life imprisonment imposed; he appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a blood sample obtained via warrant.
- Officers responded to a July 3, 2009 vehicle collision in Round Rock; Stovall, the car owner, exhibited signs of intoxication at the scene.
- A warrant was obtained to seize Stovall’s blood after he refused a breath test and after field sobriety testing indicated intoxication.
- Blood was drawn at 1:31 a.m. on July 4, analyzed, and showed BAC of .32; trial admitted blood-test evidence over objection.
- Stovall challenged the warrant for lacking probable cause because the affidavit did not state the offense’s date/time; the trial court denied suppression.
- The appellate court reviews the magistrate’s warrant decision under a highly deferential standard limited to the affidavit’s four corners; probable cause is assessed under the totality of the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blood warrant had probable cause based on the affidavit. | Stovall contends the affidavit lacked date/time of offense. | State argues the affidavit, read commonsensibly, supported probable cause. | Probable cause existed; magistrate could infer DWI shortly before dispatch. |
| Whether any suppression error would be harmless given the evidence at trial. | Stovall argues the blood evidence was unlawfully seized. | State contends any error would be nonconstitutional and harmless. | Harmless error; cumulative evidence supported conviction, so error would not affect the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 342 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (affiant’s introduction and recitation of facts may be considered together for date/time information)
- State v. Webre, 347 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.) (review of magistrate’s warrant decision constrained to four corners; de novo as to legal conclusions)
- Dugas v. State, 296 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (probable cause assessed under totality of the circumstances)
- Ritz Car Wash, Inc. v. Kastis, 976 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (common knowledge in evaluating evidence in affidavits)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (law on when a warrant makes Chapter 724 inapplicable)
- Laird v. State, 38 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (exigent circumstances and blood-draws in intoxication cases)