James Edward Shaw Jr. v. State
11-13-00241-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 6, 2015Background
- James Edward Shaw Jr. convicted after a bench trial of felony driving while intoxicated; sentenced to 40 years imprisonment and $10,000 fine.
- Trooper Burt Blue stopped Shaw for driving after dark without taillights and smelled alcohol; Shaw had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and admitted drinking “two Natural Lights.”
- Trooper Blue, trained in SFSTs and certified as a drug recognition expert, administered three field sobriety tests: HGN (6/6 clues), walk-and-turn (7/8 clues), and one-leg stand (3/4 clues).
- Trooper Blue arrested Shaw; an Intoxilyzer malfunctioned so no breath result was obtained, and Shaw refused a later blood draw.
- Dashcam video was admitted and the appellate court found it consistent with the trooper’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Shaw's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of intoxication (impairment theory) | Evidence insufficient; Intoxilyzer malfunction deprived Shaw of ability to disprove intoxication; claimed medical/back problems and speech impediment could explain observations; video allegedly not supportive | Trooper’s observations, SFST failures, admission of drinking, and dashcam video support impairment; officer discretion in testing method and Shaw refused blood test | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient under Jackson to support impairment-based DWI conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (apply Jackson standard in Texas review)
- Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (defines impairment vs. per se theories of intoxication)
- Annis v. State, 578 S.W.2d 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (officer testimony that defendant was intoxicated is probative)
- Smithhart v. State, 503 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (circumstantial evidence may prove loss of normal use of faculties)