Couthren v. State
571 S.W.3d 786
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2019Background
- Early morning collision: Couthren struck Frank Elbrich while driving on a Highway 6 frontage road; Elbrich sustained serious injuries and head struck the passenger windshield.
- Couthren admitted drinking two Four Loko beverages; officers observed signs of intoxication and he refused field sobriety tests and blood draw.
- After the collision Couthren placed the injured Elbrich in his vehicle and drove to a nearby house instead of directly to a hospital; police later found Elbrich bloody and incoherent in Couthren’s passenger seat and the windshield shattered.
- Jury convicted Couthren of felony DWI (third-degree, based on priors) and found he used/exhibited a deadly weapon (motor vehicle); punishment six years.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the deadly-weapon finding based on (1) evidence of intoxication and collision and (2) the vehicle’s capacity to cause serious injury.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and held the record lacked specific evidence that Couthren operated the vehicle in a reckless or dangerous manner; reversed and deleted the deadly-weapon finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Couthren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports a deadly-weapon finding based on manner of vehicle use before/at impact | Intoxication plus collision, shattered windshield, and injury allow inference Couthren failed to control or brake and thus used the car as a deadly weapon | Collision and drinking alone are insufficient; need specific evidence of reckless/dangerous operation | No. Insufficient evidence that Couthren drove recklessly or dangerously before/at impact; the inference would be speculative |
| Whether post-impact conduct (placing injured passenger in car and not taking him directly to medical care) can support deadly-weapon finding | Post-impact conduct put Elbrich at risk; operating the vehicle thereafter could be a use of the vehicle as a deadly weapon | Post-impact choices about care do not show dangerous manner of vehicle operation; not a recognized basis for deadly-weapon finding | No. Failure to seek immediate medical care is not evidence the vehicle was operated in a reckless/dangerous manner; cannot sustain deadly-weapon finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (deadly-weapon finding requires fact-specific evidence about manner of vehicle use)
- Moore v. State, 520 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (speed, intoxication, and evidence of failure to avoid collision can support inference of reckless driving)
- Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (rejecting automatic deadly-weapon finding in all felony DWI cases)
- Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (collision alone insufficient to support deadly-weapon finding without evidence of deadly manner of use)
- Tyra v. State, 897 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (affirming deadly-weapon finding where evidence showed inability to control vehicle due to intoxication)