Background

• Murray was convicted of driving while intoxicated under Texas Penal Code §49.04.
• The State bore the burden to prove intoxication and operation of a motor vehicle in a public place beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Sex: not relevant; the vehicle was parked, with motor running, in a private driveway near a fireworks stand in cold hours.
• Appellant was found sleeping in the driver's seat of a running pickup; the transmission was in park and the vehicle was largely off the roadway.
• The trooper who encountered Murray testified he awoke him and that a sleeping person is not operating a vehicle; evidence of actual operation at the time was lacking.
• The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to prove operation while intoxicated and reversed the conviction, acquitting Murray.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict; rational trier could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
• Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (defines operating a vehicle as taking action to affect its functioning)
• Denton v. State, 911 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (operating requires personal exertion to effect vehicle use)
• Barton v. State, 882 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994) (earlier articulations of operating vehicle criteria)
• Dornbusch v. State, 262 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (comparison on whether transmission engaged matters)
• Reynolds v. State, 744 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1987) (not informing officers of driving complicates proof)
• Pope v. State, 802 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991) (vehicle running while on roadway relevant to operation)
• Hernandez v. State, 773 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989) (evidence of vehicle manipulation considered in operation analysis)
• Hearne v. State, 80 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (discusses circumstantial evidence standards)