Esaw Lampkin v. State
470 S.W.3d 876
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Lampkin drove a stolen truck and was stopped for traffic violations; admitted drinking; BAC later measured at .111 two hours after stop.
- A warrant authorizing a blood draw was executed against Lampkin's will, and he was convicted of DWI third or more based on BAC and prior felony enhancements.
- Jury heard Lampkin's extensive criminal history including eight prior felonies; enhancements carried a 99-year sentence.
- Lampkin challenged sufficiency of the evidence, suppression of statements, BAC admissibility, and requested various jury instructions and consideration of mitigating evidence.
- Trial court denied suppression and 38.23 instructions, and Lampkin challenged admission of certain extraneous-offense and other evidence; the court of appeals reversed to award a new punishment trial only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of the evidence for DWI third or more | Lampkin contends evidence fails to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. | Lampkin argues the State failed to establish intoxication as defined by §49.01(2) and weakened by the BAC. | Evidence legally sufficient to support guilt. |
| Admissibility of BAC without retrograde extrapolation | Lampkin asserts BAC should be inadmissible without extrapolation evidence. | Lampkin's position relies on Mata; State argues extrapolation not required. | BAC admissible without retrograde extrapolation. |
| Suppression of custodial statements and Miranda warnings | Lampkin argues Miranda warnings were not properly given and statements should be suppressed. | Warnings were properly given; waiver knowingly and voluntarily acknowledged on the recordings. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; statements admissible. |
| Article 38.23 jury instruction necessity | Lampkin seeks Article 38.23 instruction due to alleged illegality of evidence. | No factual dispute about the legality; instruction not required. | No error in denying 38.23 instruction. |
| Preservation of error on extraneous-offense evidence | Lampkin argues Rule 404(b) error for extraneous offenses. | objection not preserved; grounds not properly raised on appeal. | Error not preserved; overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (addressed retrograde extrapolation admissibility context)
- Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (retrograde extrapolation reliability; admissibility not solely dependent on extrapolation)
- Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (BAC evidence admissibility without extrapolation supported)
- Stewart v. State, 129 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (retrograde extrapolation concerns; admissibility standards)
- Garcia v. State, 112 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 2003) (admissibility of BAC without extrapolation evidence)
- Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (Miranda warnings and Article 38.22/38.23 framework)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency under hypothetically correct charge)