Erik Catorce Madrid v. State
01-15-00977-CR
| Tex. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Officer Carter stopped Erik Madrid after pacing him for speeding and observing alleged tailgating; Carter smelled alcohol, observed red/glassy eyes, and Madrid admitted drinking 5–6 beers.
- Carter administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test (6/6 clues) and arrested Madrid for DWI; dash-cam video of the stop was admitted at trial.
- At the station, Madrid consented to a breath test; Intoxilyzer results were 0.155 and 0.151 g/210L.
- Madrid moved to suppress his arrest (arguing no probable cause) and the breath-test results (arguing Carter failed to continuously observe him for 15 minutes as required by DPS rules); both motions were denied.
- Trial rulings challenged on appeal: denial of a challenge for cause to a venire member, denial of suppression motions, admission of HGN evidence (not preserved), refusal to give an article 38.23 instruction and a spoliation instruction, and submitting the 0.15 BAC question as a special issue instead of in the application paragraph.
Issues
| Issue | Madrid's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of challenge for cause to venire member who said he gives police a "head start" | Number 14 showed incurable bias toward police and should have been struck for cause | Number 14 clarified he could follow the law and render a true verdict despite holding police in "high regard" | Denial upheld; trial court could credit juror's assurances and no abuse of discretion |
| Motion to suppress arrest (probable cause) | Carter lacked probable cause: dash-cam undermined driving claims; odor/admission alone insufficient; HGN improperly administered | Carter observed driving violations, odor, red eyes, admission of drinking, and HGN indicating intoxication | Denial upheld; totality of credited evidence supported probable cause; credibility conflicts resolved by trial court |
| Motion to suppress breath-test results (15-minute observation) | Carter's testimony about the 15-minute observation was inconsistent and not credible; video did not show continuous observation | Carter testified he timed and complied with the 15-minute period; gaps in recording explained by busy facility | Denial upheld; trial court could credit officer's timing testimony and resolve inconsistencies; preservation rules limit some arguments |
| Admission of HGN results | HGN was improperly administered (near flashing hazards) so results unreliable | HGN was properly administered and probative | Not preserved for review (no timely objection); issue overruled on that basis |
| Article 38.23 instruction (admissibility jury instruction) | Evidence raised a fact question about compliance with 19.3(a)(1) and warranted a 38.23 instruction | No genuine disputed fact material to admissibility; officer’s testimony that he timed 15 minutes was uncontradicted at trial | Denial upheld; Madrid failed to produce contradictory evidence creating a material fact issue |
| Spoliation instruction (failure to record entire 15-minute period) | Turning off intox-room video violated HPD policy and deprived jury of favorable evidence; instruction should permit adverse inference | Instruction patterned on civil spoliation and not applicable; no evidence of bad faith in loss of recording | Denial upheld; criminal spoliation requires bad-faith destruction and no such evidence was shown; requested instruction misstated law |
| Special issue on whether BAC ≥ 0.15 submitted separately | Omitting the 0.15 element from the application paragraph deprived jury of essential element | Special issue allowed; jury still found guilt and answered special issue affirmatively | Even if submission as special issue was error, Madrid shows no egregious harm; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Morales, 253 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Sixth Amendment impartial-jury waiver discussion)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jurors need only be open-minded, not perfectly neutral)
- Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to trial court on challenge-for-cause when answers vacillate)
- Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court may credit juror’s later assurance to follow law)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App.) (bifurcated review of suppression rulings)
- Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defer to trial court’s resolution of credibility/conflicting evidence)
- St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court is sole trier of fact and credibility)
- Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court may believe or disbelieve any witness testimony)
- Serrano v. State, 464 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (officer testimony that she timed waiting period can support denial of suppression)
- Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App.) (criminal spoliation requires bad-faith loss or destruction of evidence)
- Navarro v. State, 469 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (BAC ≥ 0.15 is an element elevating DWI to Class A)