Christopher Alexander Vujovich v. State, 06-14-00143-CR

Appellant Christopher Vujovich was indicted for Driving While Intoxicated — Subsequent Offense (third-degree felony) for an August 14, 2012 crash; he had two prior DWI convictions which he later stipulated.
Troopers responded to the crash; Vujovich displayed balance problems, slurred speech, and poor performance on field sobriety tests; he reported taking prescription medications including Ambien (zolpidem), Wellbutrin, Lexapro, and Lithium.
At the hospital Trooper Johnson read the DIC-24 statutory warning and requested blood; Vujovich signed a consent form and blood was drawn; he later disputed remembering signing the form.
DPS lab testing detected citalopram, hydroxyzine, and zolpidem in his blood (no quantification). The State’s toxicology witness explained these drugs can cause drowsiness and cumulative effects.
Defense offered a psychiatrist’s records and sought to admit an outside physician’s "interpretation of diagnosis" report, which the trial court excluded as hearsay and opinion of an unproduced expert; the court admitted medication/progress records with proper predicate.
Jury convicted after ~38 minutes; judge assessed punishment at four years’ confinement. Appellant appealed raising sufficiency, voluntariness of blood-consent, admissibility of stipulations on priors, and exclusion of the "interpretation of diagnosis."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Vujovich)	Held
1. Sufficiency of evidence of intoxication	Evidence (driving behavior, poor FSTs, officer observations, toxicology) supports a rational juror finding intoxication	Meds/sleep-driving explanation and lack of memory undermine proof beyond reasonable doubt	Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient under Jackson/Brooks standard
2. Validity of blood consent (motion to suppress)	Consent was voluntary: DIC-24 read, signed consent form, no coercion or force, no threats, nurse drew blood without resistance	Consent invalid due to intoxication; he could not knowingly consent	Trial court did not abuse discretion; consent proven by clear and convincing evidence (totality of circumstances)
3. Jury being informed of stipulation to two prior DWIs	Priors are jurisdictional elements; stipulation/written stipulation may be admitted and read to jury	Defense sought to avoid mentioning priors to jury (offered stipulation instead)	Admitting and reading the stipulation was proper; issue not preserved by objection but law permits jury notification of jurisdictional priors
4. Exclusion of Dr. Atchison’s "interpretation of diagnosis"	State objected to hearsay and lack of foundation; trial court excluded absent proffer or witness	Defense contends the report was admissible to explain medication history/effects	Exclusion upheld; defense failed to preserve error (no offer of proof and no argument to trial court)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (sufficiency review guidance)
Hollen v. State, 117 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (two prior DWI convictions are jurisdictional elements; stipulations may be shown to jury)
State v. $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2000) (factors for voluntariness of consent)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntary consent to search standard)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Texas standard requiring clear and convincing proof of voluntariness under state constitution)
Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (totality-of-circumstances test for consent)
Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for suppression rulings)