Bradley Dwayne Humphrey v. the State of Texas, 02-20-00017-CR

On Nov. 15–16, 2018, Humphrey had etizolam (nonprescription benzodiazepine) in his system from the night before and took prescribed hydrocodone the morning of a minor car accident; police observed slurred speech, poor motor control, and failed field-sobriety tests.
Intoxilyzer showed no alcohol; mouthwash explained officer’s initial smell-of-alcohol observation; blood tests detected etizolam and hydrocodone.
State’s toxicologist testified etizolam and hydrocodone (especially combined) can cause alcohol‑like depressant effects; Humphrey testified about tolerance, prior head injury/concussions, amnesia, and possible post‑accident concussion.
At charge conference defense objected only to including the statutory definition of “controlled substance”; the court nevertheless submitted the statutory intoxication definition containing “alcohol,” “dangerous drug,” and “controlled substance,” and also included the statutory controlled‑substance definition.
Jury saw body‑cam video of sobriety tests, found Humphrey guilty of DWI; trial court assessed 90 days confinement, suspended for 15 months.
In closing the prosecutor misstated the toxicologist’s testimony (claiming ‘‘five times more potent’’); the trial court declined to rule against the prosecutor, and Humphrey failed to secure an adverse ruling, so he did not preserve that complaint on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Humphrey)	Held
Whether including “alcohol” in the statutory intoxication definition (no objection) caused reversible error	Any charge error was harmless because evidence ruled out alcohol (intoxilyzer zero; mouthwash explained odor)	Inclusion unsupported by evidence and potentially prejudicial	No egregious harm; court affirmed conviction
Whether including “dangerous drug” and the statutory definition of “controlled substance” (defense objected to controlled‑substance definition) caused harm	Any error harmless; tox expert tied the drugs to intoxication and State argued intoxication by drugs	Definitions were unsupported by record and could mislead jury about statutory classifications	Because defense objected to controlled‑substance definition, reviewed for any actual harm; court found no actual harm and no reversible error
Whether prosecutor’s misstatement in closing (claimed etizolam was five times more potent) requires reversal	Misstatement not preserved for appellate review because no adverse ruling on objection at trial	Misstatement was manifestly improper and materially prejudiced verdict	Complaint forfeited; appellate review denied (Court rejects Janecka exception here)

Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harm analysis for jury‑charge error)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App.) (egregious‑harm standard for unobjected charge error)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App.) (what constitutes egregious harm; factors for harm review)
Burnett v. State, 541 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court must tailor intoxication definition to evidence)
French v. State, 563 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App.) (distinguishing theoretical from actual harm)
Chambers v. State, 580 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App.) (actual‑harm requirement when defendant objected)
Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App.) (forfeiture of jury‑argument complaints absent adverse ruling)
Mayberry v. State, 532 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court remark that jury will remember is not an adverse ruling)