James Henry Gelinas v. State
08-09-00246-CR
Tex. App.Aug 12, 2015Background
- Trooper Marquez stopped James Gelinas around midnight after observing a turn and perceiving the license-plate light as non-white; the stop led to DWI investigation and arrest.
- At the scene Gelinas showed signs of intoxication, admitted drinking beers, and performed three SFSTs (HGN: 6/6 clues; walk-and-turn: 3/8; one-leg stand: 3/4); a patrol video of the stop was introduced at trial.
- The State produced duplicate DVDs of the patrol recording; the version admitted at trial omitted some portions of the original DPS tape (including the officer reading the DWI statutory warning) per DPS practice.
- Defense challenged admission/authentication, best-evidence issues, alleged destruction/spoliation of exculpatory video, the legality of the stop (license-plate light color under Tex. Transp. Code §547.322(f)), and limits on cross-examination about SFST/HGN.
- Trial court denied suppression and other relief; this appeal presents multiple evidentiary, constitutional, and instructional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gelinas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of State’s Exhibit 1 (video) | Exhibit is altered/incomplete (omits pre-stop and statutory warning); unreliable and impairs defense | Trooper authenticated duplicate and testified it fairly and accurately depicts the traffic stop; original retained by DPS; duplicate admissible | Duplicate was properly authenticated and admissible; no abuse of discretion (Issues One & Three overruled) |
| Admission of State’s Exhibit 1A and jury instruction | 1A (shorter duplicate) not authenticated; instruction mischaracterized counsel’s conduct | 1A was already shown; court gave curative instruction at defendant’s request to explain the exhibit mix-up | Authentication objection waived; defendant requested curative instruction and did not object to its wording—no error (Issues Two & Twelve overruled) |
| Legality of traffic stop (license-plate light) / motion to suppress | Stop illegal—no reasonable suspicion/probable cause under §547.322(f) | Trooper reasonably believed light was not white; officer may stop for observed traffic violation | Evidence supported that the plate lamp did not emit white light; stop reasonable; suppression denied (Issues Four–Six overruled) |
| Failure to preserve/destroy exculpatory evidence (Brady/Trombetta/Youngblood theories) | Omitted/erased original tape portion showing no statutory warning and pre-stop matters; due process violated; request for spoliation instruction | DPS practice limited submitted footage; no proof original was destroyed or acted on in bad faith; comparable evidence potentially available | No showing of material exculpatory value or bad faith; Trombetta/Youngblood standard not met; spoliation instruction refused as inconsistent with law (Issues Eight–Eleven, Ten specifically re: bad faith overruled) |
| Admissibility of SFST evidence / officer certification | SFSTs should be suppressed because State did not prove certification at suppression hearing | State established certification at trial; trial court may reconsider suppression rulings | Trial evidence established Marquez’s certification; no suppression error (Issue Seven overruled) |
| Restriction on cross-examination and court comments | Court curtailed cross-exam about other nystagmus types and later commented to jury, impairing confrontation and weighing evidence improperly | Court reasonably limited repetitive/irrelevant questioning; its remarks were curative and not preserved by contemporaneous objection | Limits on cross-examination were within discretion; defendant failed to preserve complaint about court’s comment—no reversible error (Issues Thirteen–Fourteen overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (stop reasonable when officer has probable cause to believe traffic violation occurred)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (procedural warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Trombetta v. California, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (due process requires preservation of material exculpatory evidence; standard for lost evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (no due process violation for loss of potentially useful evidence absent bad faith)
- Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2004) (clarifies bad-faith standard for lost evidence claims)