Cornelius Jackson v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5360
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- At ~1:30 a.m., Trooper Devon Wiles stopped Cornelius Jackson for speeding (83 mph in a 65 zone); Wiles smelled alcohol and asked Jackson to exit the vehicle.
- Observations at the scene: Jackson unsteady on his feet, leaning for support, red/glassy/watery eyes, some incoherent speech, disorderly clothing, and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and from the vehicle.
- A portable breath test was given at the scene (result excluded at trial); later, outstanding warrants were discovered, Jackson was arrested on those warrants, handcuffed, placed in the patrol car, and transported to jail where he refused field sobriety and Intoxilyzer tests.
- While Jackson was detained, Wiles conducted an inventory search of the vehicle (explaining he would impound if Jackson’s mother—who was contacted and given 15 minutes to retrieve the car—did not arrive); the trooper found an open cup with an alcoholic beverage under the rear seat.
- Jackson moved to suppress evidence of the cup; the trial court denied the motion. A jury found Jackson guilty of DWI; sentence was 180 days jail probated for 18 months and a fine. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DWI | Trooper’s observations, odor, open container in vehicle, trooper’s opinion, and refusals establish intoxication | Video and facts show no slurred speech, no erratic driving, coherent ID, thus insufficient | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support conviction |
| Lawfulness of warrantless vehicle search (inventory) | Inventory was conducted pursuant to DPS policy when impoundment was reasonably necessary; mother not on scene; trooper intended to impound if she failed to appear | Search was a ruse; trooper hadn’t called tow; mother’s promise to arrive made impoundment unnecessary | Affirmed: inventory was lawful and in good faith; motion to suppress properly denied |
| Request for Article 38.23 jury instruction | N/A (State opposed instruction) | Trial court should have instructed jury that they must disregard evidence obtained unlawfully because DC facts were disputed (alternative to impoundment; policy compliance) | Denied: no disputed, material fact for jury; issues were legal or unsupported by affirmative contrary evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches are an established exception to the warrant requirement)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (police inventory searches serve caretaking purposes, not investigative ones)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory policies must not be a ruse for general rummaging)
- Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (factors for reasonableness of impoundment; alternatives must be at the scene)
- Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (inventory may be conducted before actual impoundment)
- Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (refusal to submit to breath test is admissible and relevant to consciousness of guilt)