Jose Erick Banda v. State, 09-18-00134-CR

Jose Erick Banda was indicted for felony DWI (third-degree) after a citizen reported a swerving truck; deputy Bullinger stopped Banda for traffic violations and observed signs of intoxication.
Bullinger recorded the stop on dash and body cameras; State’s Exhibit 5 contained both videos.
Banda refused breath/blood testing; officer obtained a warrant and Banda was forcibly restrained for a blood draw; lab result: 0.131 g/100 mL (legal limit 0.08).
A 911 call reporting the dangerous, in-progress driving was admitted at trial.
Banda was convicted; punishment: two years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Banda)	Held
Admission of body-camera video showing Banda handcuffed and restrained during blood draw (Rule 403)	Video was relevant to intoxication and permissible; should survive any fairness/prejudice balancing.	Video was inherently prejudicial: showed Banda in jail attire, handcuffed, and being restrained, creating unfair prejudice and undermining presumption of innocence.	Error not preserved for appeal because defense did not make a specific Rule 403 objection at trial; alternatively, admission did not affect substantial rights. Appeal denied.
Admission of 911 call over Confrontation Clause objection	911 call was nontestimonial — a present sense impression made to help police meet an ongoing emergency, not to memorialize evidence for prosecution.	Admission violated Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses because declarant did not testify and was not cross-examined; call allegedly supported weapon-use finding.	911 call was nontestimonial under Davis and related Texas precedent; admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Appeal denied.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (statements are nontestimonial when primary purpose is to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (preservation requirement for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (harmless-error standard for admitted evidence affecting substantial rights)
Vinson v. State, 252 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (factors for determining whether statements were made during an ongoing emergency)
Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (de novo review of testimonial vs. nontestimonial question)
Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (discussing testimonial nature of pretrial statements)
Santacruz v. State, 237 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (911 calls may be nontestimonial present sense impressions when reporting an ongoing emergency)