Jacob Matthew Kiffe v. State
361 S.W.3d 104
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Kiffe stipulated to two prior DWI convictions and received a three-year term of community supervision with a suspended five-year confinement.
- December 2008, on Highway 6, Kiffe’s northbound vehicle swerved, clipped a vehicle, and collided with Suzette Floyd’s southbound vehicle, totaling the Floyds’ car; Curtis Floyd suffered minor injuries.
- Suzette and Curtis Floyd stated Kiffe appeared intoxicated (slurred speech, unsteady gait) and had a strong odor of alcohol, while Trooper Terry observed an unstable gait, pinpoint pupils, and slurred speech but no alcohol smell.
- Hospital blood tests showed no alcohol; Kiffe refused a urine test; medical records noted confusion, slurred speech, apparent opiate intoxication; doctors suggested possible narcotics or depressive/psychological factors.
- Kiffe admitted taking Xanax the night before the crash and taking Valium and Vicodin; Dr. Toothaker-Alvarez testified that depression and seizures could mimic intoxication and that Xanax/opiates can depress the CNS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove intoxication | Kiffe argues the evidence fails to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt | Kiffe contends alternative explanations (medical conditions/medications) negate intoxication evidence | Yes; evidence sufficient both legally and factually to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the single standard of review announced in Brooks is constitutional | Kiffe challenges the Brooks standard as unconstitutional and seeks former factual-sufficiency review | Kiffe argues for reinstating the traditional factual-sufficiency standard | No; the court rejects the challenge and applies the Jackson legal-sufficiency standard per Brooks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1989) (establishes legal sufficiency standard for criminal cases)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (affirms standard of review framework for sufficiency)
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reiterates sufficiency considerations)
- Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (historic factual-sufficiency standard before Brooks)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (adopts single Jackson standard for sufficiency reviews)
- In re King’s Estate, 244 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1951) (articulates limits on reviewing courts’ authority over fact questions)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (recognizes exclusive jurisdiction over certain fact questions)
- Ex parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (concludes courts cannot override constitutional fact-jurisdiction)
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (discusses constitutional constraints on standards of review)
- Roberts v. State, 221 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses relation of direct-appeal review and standards of review)
- Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. App.—Houston (1st Dist.) 2010) (addressed when Brooks was decided; cited regarding standard of review authority)