Brodrick Dechone Delane AKA Broderick Shun Delane AKA Shaun Scott v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 905
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- A jury convicted Brodrick Delane of driving while intoxicated (DWI) based on alleged intoxication by medications.
- Delane pleaded true to two prior felony DWI convictions, and the jury sentenced him to 35 years in confinement.
- Pretrial, Delane moved to suppress drug/medication evidence, arguing lack of relevance and need for expert foundation.
- At trial, Officer Morrison testified about medications found in Delane’s car and about observed signs of intoxication, including HGN clues, despite Morrison not being a certified drug-recognition expert.
- Delane testified he was fatigued, dehydrated, and had Hurricane Ike-related stress; he asserted medications, not intoxication, caused his condition.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in admitting the medication evidence and/or its foundations, affecting substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of medication evidence | Delane argues Morrison’s testimony about medications was unreliable and not qualified evidence. | State maintains Morrison’s experience makes his testimony relevant and admissible; Layton distinctions apply but evidence is admissible on proper foundation. | First issue sustained; admission of medication testimony was erroneous and harmful; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Delane asserts the drug-medication evidence was weak and unreliable, making the DWI conviction unsupported. | State contends testimony and videotape supported impairment, sufficient for conviction. | Second issue overruled; evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the DWI conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (criteria for reliability of scientific evidence; gatekeeper role of trial court)
- Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (intoxication defined; impairment need not be proven by specific substance)
- Cotton v. State, 686 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (recognizes signs of intoxication such as slurred speech and staggered gait)
- Paschall v. State, 285 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (evidence from field sobriety tests and videotape may support intoxication)
- Compton v. State, 120 S.W.3d 375 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (evidence of intoxication supported by officer testimony and video)
- Henderson v. State, 29 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (testimony that a person is intoxicated is probative)
- Jordan v. State, 928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (reliability criteria for scientific evidence)