Joel Navarro v. State
469 S.W.3d 687
Tex. App.2015Background
- Appellant and his fiancée were in a single-vehicle crash; eyewitness testified; appellant initially admitted driving; fiancé possibly the driver; there was evidence of intoxication from blood and statements; hospital blood plasma BAC was 0.158, with whole-blood BAC converted to 0.132; charging instrument alleged BAC of at least 0.15; State argued per se theory based on plasma, trial court misapplied blood type, and jury was not instructed on 0.15 in whole-blood terms; conviction for Class A DWI and an enhancement based on 0.15 were entered, but the jury did not make a 0.15 finding; the court remanded for a new punishment hearing after labeling the 0.15 evidence as enhancement.
- The State confessed error on (i) using plasma instead of whole blood for per se proof, (ii) failing to submit the 0.15 BAC element to the jury, and (iii) allowing closing arguments that misstated whether blood plasma could support a DWI conviction.
- The majority ultimately held that the trial court erred in treating blood plasma as proof of the 0.15 threshold and that “blood” means “whole blood,” not plasma, so the Class A conviction cannot stand; the court rendered acquittal on Class A and remanded for a new trial on Class B.
- The court also analyzed whether the blood-concentration element should be deemed an enhancement or an offense element, concluding it is an element of a separate offense under §49.04(d).
- The opinion discusses whether the jury should have been instructed to consider “whole blood” exclusively and whether the State’s closing argument misled the jury by implying plasma could suffice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was legally sufficient evidence to convict for Class A DWI | Appellant challenged insufficiency under impairment and per se theories | State argued sufficient evidence under per se (plasma) and impairment theories | Insufficient for Class A; acquittal on Class A warranted |
| Whether ‘blood’ means whole blood or plasma for BAC under §49.01(1)(B) | Blood means whole blood; plasma is a component not equivalent to blood | Statutory definition langue tracks ‘blood’ without specifying type; plasma may be used | ‘Blood’ means whole blood; plasma cannot support 0.15+ per se finding; reversal on that basis |
| Whether the trial court erred in the charge definition of ‘alcohol concentration’ | Requested “whole blood” clarification; error in leaving term ambiguous | Charge tracked statute language; no error or harmless under Almanza | Charge error; harmful; contributed to erroneous conviction for per se theory |
| Whether State’s closing argument was improper and prejudicial | Argument suggested plasma sufficed and that whole blood was not required | Argument falls within reasonable interpretation of the charge; not reversible | Improper closing argument; contributed to harm; supports reversal for Class A acquittal |
| Whether the BAC issue is an enhancement or an offense element | Element vs enhancement—affects degree or nature of offense | Statutory interpretation supports enhancement analysis | BAC at least 0.15 is an offense element, not enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Calton v. State, 176 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (distinguishing elements vs enhancements; enhancement cannot change offense degree)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (blood meaning; reliability of converting plasma to whole-blood BAC)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for analyzing jury charge error with discretion for harm)
- Riddle v. State, 888 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (tracking statute language in jury charges; descriptive sufficiency)
- Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (techical/established meaning; need for definitional clarity in charges)