James Bernard Pace v. State
05-16-00167-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 23, 2017Background
- Appellant James Bernard Pace was arrested after backing his car into a parked vehicle; he told Officer Chacon he had drunk three beers and two cocktails and last drank around 9:00 p.m.
- Officer Chacon found Pace standing by his car at 2600 Worthington Street shortly after midnight; the owner of the struck car said she observed the accident and that Pace tried to drive away.
- Field sobriety indicators, a portable breath test, and later an intoxilyzer at the jail showed impairment and BACs of 0.102 and 0.097 at about 2:07–2:10 a.m.
- Pace was charged by information with driving while intoxicated (DWI); a jury found him guilty and the trial court sentenced him to 120 days in jail (probated), plus a $500 fine.
- On appeal Pace argued the evidence was insufficient: (1) corpus delicti was not satisfied because only his extrajudicial statement showed operation; (2) no temporal link between driving and intoxication; and (3) no proof the operation occurred in a public place.
- The court reviewed the record under Jackson v. Virginia and affirmed, finding independent evidence of operation, a sufficient temporal link, and sufficient proof the incident occurred in a public place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corpus delicti — independent evidence of operation | Independent evidence (witness observed accident; officer found Pace at scene; sobriety indicators; breath tests) supports operation beyond Pace’s confession | Only Pace’s extrajudicial statement showed he was driving; confession alone cannot establish corpus delicti | Affirmed — independent evidence sufficient to satisfy corpus delicti |
| Temporal link between intoxication and driving | Circumstantial evidence (one-car collision, witness account, arrival soon after midnight, BAC > .08 at 2:07 a.m.) permits inference intoxication existed at time of driving | No evidence of exact accident time; cannot link intoxication to the act of driving | Affirmed — reasonable juror could infer intoxication at time of collision/driving |
| Public-place element | Pace and his car were found on a public street (2600 Worthington); nothing indicates accident occurred elsewhere | No direct testimony the collision occurred on that public street | Affirmed — reasonable inference the accident occurred where Pace and the cars were found |
| Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence generally | Circumstantial evidence and inferences, viewed in the light most favorable to verdict, can prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Challenges to timing, location, and reliance on confession render evidence insufficient | Affirmed — cumulative circumstantial and direct evidence sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446 (deference to factfinder and resolving conflicts)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (circumstantial evidence as probative as direct evidence)
- Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (limitations on reweighing evidence on appeal)
- Scillitani v. State, 343 S.W.3d 914 (definitions of intoxication under Penal Code)
- Denton v. State, 911 S.W.2d 388 (defining "operate" via totality of circumstances)
- Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (requirement of temporal link between intoxication and driving)
- Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (corpus delicti rule in confession cases)
- Folk v. State, 797 S.W.2d 141 (DWI corpus delicti defined as operation in a public place while intoxicated)