Jason Harding v. State, 13-14-00090-CR

Early-morning traffic collision; officers observed Harding near his vehicle with slurred speech, glassy eyes, and odor of alcohol; Harding admitted drinking two beers and two shots.
Officer Richter administered HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg-stand (refused); observed 3/3 HGN clues and 6/8 walk-and-turn clues; Harding refused breath test and later became uncooperative at the jail and hospital.
At the hospital Harding was diagnosed with tachycardia, anxiety reaction, and alcohol intoxication; records included a differential of "meth/cocaine" but urine tox was negative; no blood alcohol test performed.
State introduced hospital medical records at Harding’s DWI trial over multiple objections; the court excluded evidence of an alleged assault on the officer but admitted the records.
Jury convicted Harding of Class B misdemeanor DWI; trial court sentenced him to 45 days in a sheriff’s weekender program.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on HGN reliability	Walters-based special instruction necessary because HGN was improperly performed (stimulus distance ~18" vs 12–15")	General charge and counsel's closing argument suffice; special instruction would impermissibly comment on weight of evidence	No error — court properly refused instruction as an improper comment on weight of the evidence
Whether hospital medical records were admissible (Rule 902(10), relevance, hearsay, Confrontation Clause)	Records were untimely filed in the DWI cause, hearsay, character evidence, and testimonial (Confrontation Clause)	Records were business/medical treatment records, non-testimonial; timely filed in related assault cause and admissible; any error harmless	Admission violated Rule 902(10) (untimely filing) but was harmless; records are non-testimonial so no Confrontation Clause violation

Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (limits on non‑statutory jury instructions that comment on evidence weight)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for defensive issues in jury charge)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (two‑part Confrontation Clause test for testimonial statements)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (distinction between forensic/testimonial certificates and non‑testimonial business/medical records)
Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1996) (Rule 902(10) fourteen‑day filing requirement is mandatory for self‑authentication)
Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (post‑driving behavior and other observations as evidence of intoxication)
O’Connell v. State, 17 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. App. — Austin 2000) (rejecting jury instruction characterizing HGN as reliable indicator of intoxication)