Brittany Redden v. State
11-13-00214-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 30, 2015Background
- Brittany Redden was convicted by a jury of DWI; sentence: 90 days jail (suspended), $750 fine, 90-day license suspension, 1 year community supervision.
- Officers observed driving irregularities, smelled alcohol, administered standardized field sobriety tests (video shows swaying/stumbling), and arrested Redden.
- Breath tests showed BACs of .151 and .133; expert estimated Redden's BAC about .14 at the time of stop; Redden admitted to drinking one beer and one mixed drink.
- State called Sarah Skiles, a senior forensic analyst, who testified generically that "by about .04 or .05, the majority of people are significantly impaired."
- Defense objected to the prosecutor’s question as irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Rule 403); defense did not object immediately to Skiles’s actual answer.
- The trial court overruled the objection; on appeal Redden argued the testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial. The court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony that a majority are impaired at ~.04–.05 BAC | Redden: generic numerical opinion was irrelevant, not tied to her case, and more prejudicial than probative under Rules 401/403/702 | State: testimony provided background to help jurors understand what BAC numbers mean and was relevant to the impairment theory | Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting the prosecutor’s question; error not preserved as to the answer; even if error, it was harmless given strong per se evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Rule 702 relevance inquiry: expert evidence must assist trier of fact and be tied to case)
- Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (two ways to prove DWI: impairment theory and per se BAC theory)
- Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Rule 403 factors and trial court's broad discretion)
- Long v. State, 649 S.W.2d 363 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1983, pet. ref’d) (toxicology expert may opine when persons are intoxicated relative to BAC)
- Adams v. State, 808 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.) (chemist's opinion that .08+ equates to intoxication admissible under impairment theory)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard for harmless error review of nonconstitutional evidentiary errors)