Fernando Razo v. State
01-15-00290-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Defendant Fernando Razo was convicted by a jury of intoxication manslaughter with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 10 years’ confinement. The crash killed the female driver (the complainant).
- Eyewitness and crash-reconstruction testimony placed Razo’s truck at high speed (≈54–67 mph near impact) and concluded the collision would have occurred due to his speed even if he were not impaired.
- HPD officer observed signs of intoxication on Razo; forensic toxicologist performed retrograde extrapolation of Razo’s blood draws and concluded his BAC at the time of the crash was roughly .24–.32.
- The complainant’s postmortem toxicology report showed delta-9-THC and a marijuana metabolite, but the analyst who performed the testing was no longer at the lab; the HCIFS toxicology co-director (Walterscheid) reviewed the report but did not perform the test.
- Outside the jury’s presence Walterscheid testified marijuana impairment cannot be determined reliably from postmortem toxicology, that the complainant’s THC level appeared barely detectable and not likely to have produced impairment at the time of the crash.
- The trial court ruled the complainant’s marijuana-use evidence (and related questioning) was relevant but excluded it under Texas Rule of Evidence 403 as more prejudicial than probative; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Razo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of complainant’s marijuana-use evidence (to support concurrent-causation defense) | Evidence was speculative, minimally probative, and risked unfair prejudice; exclusion proper under Rule 403 | Evidence was relevant to concurrent-causation defense and not unduly prejudicial | Affirmed exclusion under Rule 403: probative value minimal and prejudice substantial; within trial court’s discretion |
| Permitting questioning of officers/experts about marijuana’s general effects | Such general testimony would be of weak probative value and risked jury prejudice and confusion | Sought to question to show how complainant’s marijuana could have contributed to the crash (support concurrent causation) | Trial court did not abuse discretion in limiting such questioning; general effects testimony was tenuously linked and could mislead jury |
| Admission of complainant’s toxicology report under business-records hearsay exception | The Court of Appeals did not reach merits after affirming exclusion on Rule 403 | Argued report was a business record admissible under Rule 803(6) | Not addressed on the merits (court declined to reach third issue after resolving 403 issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (relevancy assessed by whether evidence is helpful in determining truth)
- Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate review: uphold evidentiary ruling if correct on any applicable theory)
- Jabari v. State, 273 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (appellate review of Rule 403 within zone of reasonable disagreement)