James, Marcus Louis
PD-1261-15
| Tex. | Oct 27, 2015Background
- Marcus Louis James was charged with DWI after a traffic stop; jury convicted and the court assessed a $2,000 fine and 180 days confinement (suspended), with 18 months probation. Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Detective Jeremy Bearden administered three standardized field sobriety tests: HGN (horizontal gaze nystagmus) off-camera, then walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand on the dash-cam video. Bearden testified James showed 6/6 HGN clues.
- Video showed walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand on camera; HGN administration occurred beside the vehicle out of the camera’s view. Bearden explained he performed HGN off-camera because of people standing where he normally would perform it.
- Defense argued officers intentionally administered HGN off-camera (a recurring practice) to prevent scrutiny of the HGN technique at trial, invoking Arizona v. Youngblood due-process concerns and Kelly/Emerson scientific-evidence requirements. Counsel submitted video compilations of other off-camera HGN administrations.
- Trial court admitted Bearden’s HGN testimony; the jury heard HGN plus other testimony (including an admission by James of alcohol consumption and refusal of a breath test). Appellate court affirmed, finding no proof of bad faith and sufficient evidence even without HGN.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of off-camera HGN testimony | HGN was performed intentionally off-camera to deprive defense of ability to scrutinize proper administration; that withheld potentially exculpatory evidence and violated due process (Youngblood) and Kelly reliability/prong-3 requirements | Officer Bearden testified he followed standardized HGN procedure, HGN clues aren’t visible on dash-cam, no evidence of intentional or bad-faith suppression; trial court did not abuse discretion | Court of Appeals: admissible — no evidence of bad faith; trial court’s admission within zone of reasonable disagreement; overruled challenge |
| Sufficiency of evidence without HGN | Without HGN evidence, remaining evidence (video of other tests, lack of odor/red eyes/unsteadiness testimony) is weak and insufficient to support conviction | Even excluding HGN, jury had walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand clues on video, James’s admission of drinking, and breath-test refusal — sufficient for a rational juror to convict | Court of Appeals: evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt even if HGN excluded; affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (due process claim requires showing of bad faith for failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence)
- Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (three-prong test for admissibility of scientific evidence: valid theory, valid technique, proper application)
- Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (HGN is scientific evidence governed by Kelly/Rule 702)
- State v. Rudd, 255 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (trial court suppressed HGN where officer administered it off-camera and credibility/proper administration issues existed)
- Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (discussed in Youngblood line regarding due process and evidence preservation)