Daniel Brandon Lyle v. State
418 S.W.3d 901
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Daniel Brandon Lyle was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated.
- The trial court sentenced Lyle to one year confinement probated for two years.
- Houston Police Officer Martinez observed signs of intoxication and arrested Lyle after a call about a suspected DWI driver.
- Evidence included HGN results, Walk and Turn results, and a breath test result of 0.21.
- Video recording of field sobriety tests was not made due to a recorder malfunction.
- Lyle challenged hearsay admission, the court’s judicial-notice remark, and the jury instruction on judicial notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay testimony | Lyle argues the dispatch report is hearsay. | State contends the testimony explains why a suspect was formed and is not hearsay. | Hearsay admission overruled; not error. |
| Judicial notice comment affecting weight of evidence | Lyle asserts the court’s judicial notice comments weight the evidence improperly. | State contends no preserved error and proper handling of judicial notice. | Issue unpreserved; overruled. |
| Jury charge on Rule 201 judicial notice instruction | Lyle claims lack of Rule 201 instruction caused egregious harm. | State argues no egregious harm and evidence supported the element. | No egregious harm; charge error overruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard of review for trial-court evidentiary rulings)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (extrajudicial statements used to explain how suspect became involved)
- Lacaze v. State, 346 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (officer may relay statements to explain events leading to arrest)
- Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (rational inference of public place from surrounding circumstances)
- Webber v. State, 29 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (preservation and impact of instructional omissions on egregious harm)
- Zinger v. State, 899 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995) (egregious-harm standard and Rule 201 instruction analysis)
- Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (egregious-harm assessment framework for error preservation)