Brian Buzby v. State
480 S.W.3d 113
Tex. App.2015Background
- On May 11, 2013, HPD officers stopped Brian Buzby after observing a possible traffic offense; Officer Margarito Perales (DWI-trained) smelled alcohol, noted glassy eyes and slurred speech, and conducted field sobriety tests.
- Perales reported 6/6 HGN clues, 3/4 one-leg-stand clues, and 7/8 walk-and-turn clues; video of the testing showed missed/repeated counting, mis-stepping, unsteady gait, and balance problems.
- Perales arrested Buzby; Buzby refused breath testing. A search-warrant blood draw showed BAC 0.178; retrograde extrapolation estimated BAC 0.195–0.230 at the stop.
- The criminalist who tested the blood testified about qualifications and that she had limited hands-on blood-analysis experience (about three weeks) when she analyzed this sample; she was working on a master’s degree.
- Defense sought to admit the criminalist’s college transcript (showing chemistry coursework and mixed grades) and challenged Perales when he correlated HGN onset angles to approximate BAC; the trial court excluded the transcript and allowed Perales to testify about HGN training/angle-of-onset.
- Jury convicted Buzby of DWI (but not the alleged BAC ≥ 0.15); sentence: eight days in jail, $2,000 fine, one-year license suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of criminalist’s academic transcript | Buzby: transcript relevant to impeach qualifications/credibility of the toxicologist | State: transcript marginal, duplicative of witness testimony, and would confuse or unduly prejudice jury | Trial court did not abuse discretion under Rules 401/403; exclusion affirmed |
| Officer correlating HGN results to specific BAC | Buzby: Perales improperly quantified BAC from HGN (not admissible) | State: Perales may explain HGN onset/angle training and its relation to intoxication; not testifying about drugs | Even if error, any admission was harmless given unclear testimony and overwhelming other evidence (video, field tests, blood analysis); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 403 balancing factors)
- Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (HGN expert may testify about HGN results but may not correlate HGN to a precise BAC)
- Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (nonconstitutional evidentiary error reviewed under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b))
- Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (marginally relevant, speculative evidence may be excluded under Rule 403)